Homogeneous Student-Sectioning, Homogenous Student-Sectioning, Sociology of Education, PUP

Republic of the Philippines
POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

College of Arts
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY
Mabini Campus
Sta. Mesa, Manila
Labeling as a consequence of
Homogenous Student-Sectioning
At Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School
And its subsequent effects on
Selected student-related variables
An Undergraduate Thesis
Presented to the faculty of the
Department of Sociology
In partial fulfilment of the requirements

For the degree:
Bachelor of Science in Sociology
Presented by:
John Nicer Abletis

BSS IV-I
SY 2008-2009
Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer
APPROVAL SHEET
This thesis entitled “Labeling as a consequence of Homogenous Student-

Sectioning at Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School and its subsequent
effects on selected student-related variables” prepared by John N. Abletis, in
partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science in
Sociology, has been examined and is recommended for acceptance and
approval in the oral examination.
_______________________
Prof. Cristita Almonte-Mallari
Thesis Adviser
THESIS REVIEW PANEL
Approved by the panel of examiners on oral examination with a grade of

______ on February 27, 2009, 6:30 pm at the College of Arts Community
Development Extension Office, 6th floor South Wing, PUP Main Building, Mabini
Campus, Sta. Mesa, Manila.
_______________________ ______________________
Prof. Apolonio A. Duque Dr. Zenaida T. Medrano
Member Member
_______________________
Prof. Justin V. Nicolas
Member
Noted by:
______________________
Dr. Emanuel C. De Guzman
Chair
PUP Department of Sociology
______________________
Dr. Nenita F. Buan
Dean
PUP College of Arts
p. 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am truly indebt to the following persons who have helped me, in one way
or another, in the completion of this study. Without them, I would be nothing.
I sincerely thank my parents for financing my research activity. I also really
appreciate valuable comments from my two sisters regarding my theory, the
appearance and language of my questionnaire, and their tips on how I would be
going to conduct the distribution of the questionnaires.
I sincerely acknowledge the authorship of books, theses, journals, and
news articles that were quoted in this study. They are rightfully owned by their
respective authors. They were quoted to aid our understanding on the topic, thus,
I disclaim ownership of them, and I am truly indebt with their contribution to my
understanding of the topic. Proper referencing had been an endeavour to me.
I am thanking Maam Cynthia Lopez and Maam Luzviminda Mendoza and
the other staff of the DENR-SCO-ICAD for giving me time to focus for my thesis
writing despite the conduct of my OJT.
Special thanks are extended to the staff of the Quezon City Division
Office—Office of the Superintendent for entertaining my letter requests regarding
the permit to conduct this survey research.
My classmates played an active role in the formulation of options and
items in my questionnaire. They have been my continuous source of ideas,
encouragement, and joy. Salamat din kina Pec at Joan, sa Animal Kingdom, sa
Socio’s Angels, kina Em-ar, Emman, Ate Rhia, Kuya Yuen, atbp.
I am thanking Dr. Gil Magbanua, principal, and Mr. Joey Mancia, asst. to
the principal, of Batasan Hills National High School, for allowing me to conduct a
survey at their school, although that survey later served as the pretesting ground
of this study. I also thank my former teachers there who have never forgotten me
despite years of my non-appearance to them. They gave me hope during my
most trying times of conducting this research. I also appreciate the stories,
experiences, and answers given by the respondents at Batasan regarding
student sectioning. Up to this point, masasabi kong anak Batasan pa rin ako!
I sincerely thank Dr. Juanita Alajar, principal, and Ms. April Cunanan, 4th
year level chairman, of Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School (the former
Payatas High School) for allowing me to conduct the final survey for this study.
Despite preliminary miscommunications, they still gave me their trust to conduct
the survey regardless of their school’s long practice of non-acceptance of
collegiate researchers. Sa totoo lang, hindi ko alam kung anong gagawin ko kung
hindi ninyo ako pinayagang magconduct ng survey. I am also thanking the
cooperation and respect given by the student-respondents of the school during
the conduct of the survey. Maraming-maraming salamat po!
I am cognizant with the vital role played by my professors in Sociology,
Psychology, and Philosophy during my study at this university. They were the
ones who created me as an aspiring-to-be Sociologist. They have contributed
significantly as to how I view our social world.
I sincerely thank Prof. Wilfredo San Juan and Prof. Engels Del Rosario for
reviewing my thesis. The former was my professor in thesis writing; the latter was
p. 3
the one who voluntarily supplemented our class’ knowledge on thesis writing. Sir
Engels also became one of my resource persons on thesis writing.
I wish to express my gratitude to Dr. Armando Torres, chairperson of the
PUP-Department of Psychology, for answering my inquiries regarding statistical
techniques and motivation. Relevant to this is the help given by Mr. Arman
Santos, a senior student of the PUP Dept. of Mathematics and Statistics and
Engr. Leogario SM. Bautista, Director of the PUP Open University, for other
clarifications on using the weighted mean formula on Likert-like scales..
I sincerely thank Dr. Emanuel De Guzman, chairperson of the PUP-
Department of Sociology, for answering my questions regarding ethics in
research. He assured me that my research, as well as my questionnaire, is not
unethical. Relevant to this is the help given by Ms. Valerie Baricua, a senior
Psychology major student of UP Diliman and also a former classmate of mine, on
her suggestions on how to lessen effects of unethical questions. I am also
thankful that Prof. Justin Nicolas reviewed my questionnaire against any
unethical items and has entertained my questions regarding thesis writing.
I deeply appreciate the help given by Dr. Zenaida Medrano on arranging
items on my questionnaire. She also shared with me encouragement, advice,
and stories which contributed to my insights regarding this study’s importance.
I am also deeply thankful that Prof. Cristita Almonte-Mallari accepted my
request to become my thesis adviser. She gave me valuable information,
insights, ideas, comments, and suggestions on how to conduct social research.
She served as a mother to me and to our class not only during our junior year but
also at the present times. Maam Mallari, salamat po!
And to Whom should I give the greatest thank of all? Syempre to God,
with the intercession of Mama Mary, He is the one who provided me with all of
what I have now. Hindi niya ako iniwan. Totoo nga ang kasabihan...
“He neither comes early nor late. He is always on time.”
-JNA
p. 4
“Cogito ergo sum”
- Descartes
Para sa lahat ng mga estudyante, naging estudyante, at magiging estudyante
Para sa mga guro, at gustong maging guro
Para sa mga Sosyolihista na may malalim na pagpapahalaga sa edukasyon
Ang pananaliksik na ito ay para sa inyo.
p. 5
ABSTRACT
Mostly educated Filipinos experienced being sectioned homogenously

during their elementary and high school years. The trend of homogenous
student-sectioning still exist today (although efforts have been made to weaken
it) such that labels, expectations, and attributions associated and indicative to
student-stratification continue to exist, constraining and aiding people to
pigeonhole (typifications) students based on how much they posses what the
school values (academic achievement i.e. indicative to grades, especially to what
section-status they belong [higher, average, lower section]).
The paper made Labeling theory by Edwin Lemert, Distance and Value by
Georg Simmel, and Stratification theory by C. H. Cooley (with prestige dimension
by Max Weber) interrelated such that it could explain how labeling could affect
the aspiration and motivation for academic achievement, the academic and
social self-concepts, and the social interactions of higher and lower section
students. Thus, this research falls within the field of the Sociology of Education.
The paper strays from qualitative methodologies conventionally required
in Symbolic Interactionism to explicitly show that (the conception of) labels,
expectations, and attributions are shared and that their possible effects shouldn’t
be neglected (because a considerable proportion of the population has been
consulted), unlike case studies which, the researcher thinks, are prone to such
(because of small number of respondents). Despite being largely quantitative,
meanings on qualitative responses (i.e. reasons, explanations) given by the
respondents were explored and interpreted. This is a manifestation that this
research has recognized the duality of both macro and micro processes of the
labeling phenomena (Structural Symbolic Interactionism).
Using the commonly used survey method, the researcher was able to get
the attitudes, perceptions, and feelings of higher and lower section students
regarding the labeling that they were experiencing, on a massive and collective
sense. The theory was validated among randomly selected respondents from
Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School (former Payatas High School) SY 08-
09, Barangay Payatas, Quezon City.
After data gathering and analyses, the researcher found out that higher
section students were secondary deviants, have positive subjective-academic-
self-concepts, were aspiring and (more) motivated for academic achievement,
were being competitors with other students, and were being co-operators with
their teachers, other teachers, and the school administration. All these findings
were caused (although not strong) by the positive, high expecting labels
associated to them. Lower section students, on the other hand, were primary
deviants, have indeterminate subjective-academic self-concepts, were aspiring
and motivated for academic achievement, and were also being competitors with
other students. Negative, low expecting labels associated to them caused
(although not strong) these findings.
Conflicting views were reiterated at the end of the paper (i.e. Chapter 4)
to leave the reader the decision of whether to track (homogenously sectioning) or
to untrack (heterogeneous sectioning) students.
&
p. 6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Title Page .................................................................................................... 1
Approval Sheet ........................................................................................... 2
Acknowledgement ...................................................................................... 3
Dedication ................................................................................................... 5
Abstract ....................................................................................................... 6
Table of Contents ...................................................................................... 7
List of Figures and Tables .......................................................................... 9
CHAPTER 1 THE PROBLEM

A. Introduction …………….................................................................... 11
B. Theoretical Framework .................................................................... 15
C. Conceptual Framework ................................................................... 28
D. Statement of the Problem ............................................................... 30
E. Significance of the Study ................................................................. 31
F. The Setting of the Study .................................................................. 33
G. Scope and Limitation of the Study ................................................... 34
H. Definition of Terms .......................................................................... 40
CHAPTER 2 THE REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Part 1: Conceptual Literature ............................................................. 45
Part 2: Research Literature
A. Foreign Studies ........................................................... 63
B. Local Studies ............................................................... 71
Part 3: The Review of Related Literature and the Present Study ....... 75
CHAPTER 3 THE METHODOLOGY

A. Design of the Study ......................................................................... 77
B. Nature of Data ................................................................................. 78
C. Methods, Techniques, and Procedures in gathering Primary Data
1. Pretesting Period ...................................................................... 79
2. The Conduct of Survey ............................................................ 80
D. Variables of the Study ..................................................................... 80
E. The Questionnaire and the Operationalization of Variables ............ 81
F. Statistical Treatment of the Quantitative Primary Data .................... 86
G. Sampling .......................................................................................... 91
H. The Respondents ............................................................................ 94
CHAPTER 4 PRESENTATION, ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATION

OF DATA
A. The Characteristics of the Student-Respondents ............................ 95
B. The Sectioning Methodology Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High
School has ....................................................................................... 116
C. Labels, Expectations, and Attributions associated with the
p. 7
Student-Respondents ...................................................................... 122
D. The attitude of higher section and lower section senior students on
their aspiration for academic achievement ...................................... 131
E. The Student-Respondents and Academic Achievement ................. 148
F. Perceived distance the Student-Respondents have between their
selves and Academic Achievement ................................................. 151
G. The Student-Respondents on Motivation for Academic
Achievement .................................................................................... 154
H.1 The Student-Respondents and their Immediate Social Sphere of
Interaction ........................................................................................ 161
H.2 The Student-Respondents and their Non-immediate Social Sphere
of Interaction (General Audience) .................................................... 176
I. The Student-Respondents’ Social Self-Concepts ........................... 177
J. Benefits of the present student-sectioning ...................................... 179
CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Summary ......................................................................................... 183
B. Conclusions ..................................................................................... 184
C. Recommendations ........................................................................... 188
References ................................................................................................. 190
Appendices
A. Letters and Permits ......................................................................... 194
B. Questionnaires (Pretesting and Testing Period) .............................. 195
C. The Sampling Frame ...................................................................... 196
D. JCMPHS’ Mission, Vision, and History ............................................ 202
E. Gallery of Photos ............................................................................. 207
F. Some Salindiwa newspaper articles................................................. 211
G. The Researcher ............................................................................... 214
p. 8
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure Page
1 Conceptual framework .................................................................. 28
2 Shavelson’s, Hubner’s and Stanton’s structure of the self-
concept ......................................................................................... 59
Table Page
1 Weight equivalents for all rating scales ........................................ 87
2 Desired, defined, and excluded Populations ................................ 91
3 Distribution and retrieval of questionnaires ................................... 92
4 Distribution of respondents by sex ................................................ 95
5 Distribution of respondents by age ............................................... 96
6 Distribution of respondents by annual family income ................... 98
7 Distribution of respondents on the number of household
members ....................................................................................... 99
8 An inquiry if the respondents work ................................................ 100
9 Socioeconomic status ................................................................... 101
10 Respondents’ number of schooling years since grade 1 .............. 103
11 Distribution of respondents on their 3rd yr. average ...................... 104
12 An inquiry if respondents have back subjects ............................... 105
13 Number of years the respondents has been higher or lower
section students since first year .................................................... 106
14 Distribution of respondents regarding their participation in
school-wide activities since 1st yr. ................................................. 109
15 Awards received during the respondents’ stay at JCMPHS ......... 111
16 The respondents’ perception as to how they were sectioned ....... 117
17 The respondents’ perception on the basi(e)s of being assigned
to their respective sections ........................................................... 118
18 Respondents’ perception on how they were sectioned in
elementary .................................................................................... 120
19 Expectations for Higher Section Students .................................... 121
20 Expectations for Lower Section Students ..................................... 126
21 Student-respondents’ attitude regarding the sections they belong 131
22 The student-respondents’ main label as a consequence of being
at their present sections ................................................................ 133
23 An inquiry as to who labels the student-respondents ................... 137
24 An inquiry as to how higher section students were labelled by
the groups of people that they identified in item P2D.3 ................ 140
25 An inquiry as to how lower section students were labelled by the
groups of people that they identified in item P2D.3 ...................... 142
26 An inquiry if the respondents were also being labelled by the
attributes, adjectives, or expectations that they identified in items
P2C.1 and P2C.2 .......................................................................... 143
27 An inquiry as to what extent the student-respondents accept the
p. 9
labeling that they have been experiencing ................................... 144
28 Subjective Academic Self-concepts .............................................. 145
29 Student-respondents’ attitude on their aspiration for academic
achievement ................................................................................. 148
30 An inquiry if the labels strengthen the respondents’ self-
confidence to aspire for academic achievement ........................... 150
31 The student-respondents’ conception of distance between them
and academic achievement .......................................................... 152
32 An inquiry if the labels strengthen the student-respondents’ self-
confidence when doing activities at school ................................... 155
33 Frequencies student-respondents have on some selected
academic activities when considering their labels of being higher
or lower section students .............................................................. 156
34 If the student-respondents were motivated for academic
achievement ................................................................................. 159
35 Mapping on motivation .................................................................. 160
36 Labels, expectations, attributions, and the sectioning-issue as
possible effectors within the respondents’ immediate social
sphere of interaction ..................................................................... 162
37 If comparison were beneficial to the respondents ........................ 164
38 Pattern of Social Interaction (PSI) of student-respondents’
section with their teachers ............................................................ 165
39 PSI of the student-respondents’ section with other higher section
students ........................................................................................ 168
40 PSI of the student-respondents’ section with the lower section
students ........................................................................................ 170
41 PSI of the student-respondents’ section with the middle/average
section students ............................................................................ 172
42 PSI of the student-respondents’ section with other teachers ....... 174
43 PSI of the student-respondents’ section with the school
administration ............................................................................... 175
44 The student-respondents’ self-concepts based on the pattern of
social interaction that they have identified within their in-school
non-immediate social sphere ........................................................ 177
45 An inquiry if the respondents find homogenous student-
sectioning and the labeling that they were experiencing
beneficial for their personal development ..................................... 179
p. 10
Chapter 1
Introduction
A. Background of the Study
Batasan Hills National High School was established in 1998 to render the
growing number of informal settler youth at Barangay Batasan Hills, Quezon City
with the formal secondary education they need. The school formally opened on
December 8, 1998 with Dr. Romulo B. Rocena as its first principal, together with
its first nineteen teachers who were faced to manage more or less four hundred
students (Duag, 2006, pp.10-11) originating from the nearby high school
institutions of Bagong Silangan and Commonwealth. As a new school, Batasan
experienced scarcity both on educational/structural facilities and in the number of
administrative and technical personnel (especially teachers). Since then, the
school experienced an influx of students coming from nearby elementary schools
every enrolment season, making its student population to rise steadily over the
years, aggravating its condition on resource scarcity.
The researcher arrived at Batasan as a freshman student in June, 2001.
Batasan was bigger at that time compared to its state in 1998; however, what
seemed to “culture shock” him was the size of the classrooms.1 To accommodate
the large student population, the school administration decided to divide the
usual size of classrooms into halves, with each classroom containing
approximately sixty students in relation to more or less thirty chairs. Hence,
making about half of the students in each section to bring rice sacks everyday so
1
Definitely the researcher was culture shocked because the (material) condition of his new
school was different in contrast to his primary years at Payatas A. Elementary School.
p. 11
they can sit on the floor until their class for the day was over. Scarcity of chairs
and teacher-tables, poor classroom ventilation, and dirty comfort rooms were just
some of the “striking features” of the old Batasan scenario.
Reminiscing the old Batasan2 would entail the student-sectioning issue.
Evident on those times was how the students were sectioned homogenously
(higher sections) and heterogeneously (lower sections), and how such system of
classifying students developed into stratification of students with consequences
on the different levels of access and acquisition of prestige, power, and material
resources (e.g. Star Sections [Section 1] at that time had complete chairs, bigger
rooms, priority rights on elective TLE courses etc., conditions contrary to what
their fellow students were experiencing at the lower sections, see Appendix G).
Differences on material conditions were evident at that time; what has
been more implied and implicit, however, was the use of labels connected to
sections and, consequently, to students belonging to those sections (i.e. the
labels higher section student and lower section student).
Such preliminary experience motivated the researcher to pursue a study
on student sectioning, even though its trend seems to be diminishing at Batasan.
Asking some of his present classmates and friends reared on other schools have
also shared experiences on student-sectioning comparable to those he had.
Scant newspaper articles also suggest the like.
2
The present day Batasan would be very much different in physical condition as compared to
what the researcher experienced during his secondary years (2001-2005). The material
constraints that were previously discussed have mostly been gone due to recent intensive
infrastructural developments done by Quezon City Mayor Feliciano Belmonte and District II
Representative Annie Rosa Susano.
p. 12
...Noon namang hayskul, maraming kakulangan ang hindi napunan ng aming
guro dahil napupunta ang pribilehiyong matutukan ang pag-aaral sa mga higher
sections lamang. Palibhasa nasa lower section ako kaya di ko pansin ang mga
bagay na iyon. Pinapangarap ko rin minsang mapabilang sa mga higher sections
pero ‘di kaya ng aking kakayahan kaya nanatiling kulang ang aking mga
kaalaman hanggang sa ako’y makapagtapos ng hayskul.
-Jeric F. Jimenez (2007, p. 14)
...It was a matter of honor for those in the premier section to maintain their
standing there or for those in the lower sections to be promoted to join them,
replacing those who had fallen behind. Reassignment to a lower section was a
disgrace. Naturally, those in the brightest class were despised by those in the
lower sections, but this was probably out of envy only...
-Isagani A. Cruz (1999, p. 8)
Most educated Filipinos experienced being grouped into sections during
their schooling years. Student-sectioning is a common practice of schools,
whether public or private, with considerably large student population. It is mostly
part of every school’s educational-organizational management strategy to
effectively manage the schools limited personnel and material resources in
relation to rendering student services –the allocation of resources, student-
teacher ratio, student-book ratio, etc.
School Administrators usually decide whether the student-sectioning
strategy will be Homogenous or Heterogeneous, or a mixture of these.
Homogenous Student Sectioning, or Ability Grouping, basically implies the
creation of sections with students having most likely similar mental abilities and
capabilities in learning. On the contrary, Heterogeneous Student Sectioning
involves the creation of sections with students having, aside from diverse
backgrounds, varied abilities and capabilities in learning, with different
inclinations and interests.
p. 13
Homogenous Student-sectioning consequentially follows the emergence
of the higher section-lower section dichotomy, with the higher(est) sections
composed of students having exceptional marks3 to the lower(est) sections
composed of students with the lowest grades. This arrangement would most
likely produce the Higher Section Student and the Lower Section Student labels,
with their accompanying attributions and expectations that are traditionally 4
attached to them. The researcher personally believes that these labels were
likely to be part of the self-concepts of the students, and may have influenced
their aspirations, motivations, and social interactions inside the school.
It was curiosity which pushed the researcher to pursue the study.
Basically, he wanted to know how true and wide scoping (number of students
affected) his theoretical construct is relative to student sectioning. Reviewing
related studies of Rosental and Jacobson in 1968 (as cited in Ballantine, 1997;
Rosenthal, 1997), of Hoge (1979), Labuguen (1968), Doctolero (1995), and
Ceñidoza (2004) further strengthen the need to pursue a study regarding
student-sectioning since most of these researches were not primarily sociological
(except for latter); as well as the need to update the knowledge on the topic.5
These rationales guided the researcher into believing that his study is worthy of
being pursued in the light of Sociological theories and concepts and some
3
Schools, on different school-years would vary on how they would define “exceptional” based on
students’ averages.
4
“Traditional” since Homogenous Student Sectioning has been the traditional methodology of
student-sectioning in the Philippines. Since it has become traditional, or customary, the labels,
attributions and expectations produced by it do not easily cease, especially if a considerable
number of schools practice such sectioning type, or are showing tendencies of it.
5
Several local seemingly related studies were conducted from the 1960’s to the 1980’s.
However, the researcher was not able to read them due to an organizational policy imposed by
The National Library on accessing theses and dissertations.
p. 14
borrowing of terms from other related fields (i.e. motivation and the nature of self-
concept in Psychology). The researcher personally believes that what his study
has in contrast to the studies cited above is the special emphasis on the possible
effects of labels, attributions, and expectations on the self-concepts, aspiration
and motivation for academic achievement, and social interactions of secondary
senior students banded into stratified sections.
This does not mean…that as sociologists, we need to divest ourselves of our

values; indeed we could not do this even if we wanted to. The ability to
conceptualize values… is one of the principal features that distinguishes humans
as a species. All that is necessary is that we be prepared to accept what may be
surprising and perhaps even displeasing to us if our findings do not support what
we strongly believe or hold dear.
-Martin Marger (2000, p.6)
I have tried to be objective: I do not claim to be detached
-C. Wright Mills (in Massey, 2000, p.13)
B. Theoretical Framework
Conventionally, to effectively manage the students and the schools’
resources (human resources, material resources, services), school
administrators need to group students into sections (section 1, 2, 3, etc.). How
administrators section students vary depending on their schools’ organizational
structure, structural constraints, and the schools’ atmosphere and culture
(Ballantine, 1997, p.71). Administrators have two most common methodologies
of sectioning students: (1) Homogenous sectioning and (2) heterogeneous
sectioning. The former is commonly called “between-class ability grouping” or
“tracking” (Slavin, 2003, p.296) because such process commonly involves the
usage of tests (i.e. IQ tests, Achievement Tests etc.) and/or evaluation of former
grades to determine which students should be placed in the fast track and be
p. 15
given advance lessons, and which students should be placed in the slow track
and be given more attention in teaching. Heterogeneous sectioning, on the other
hand, involves the grouping of students possessing different levels of abilities
and capabilities of learning into equally appearing statuses of sections.
Homogenous student sectioning (ability grouping) has been “a common
practice among schools around the world because most teachers feel it is easier
to teach a group of like-ability students” (Ballantine, 1997, p.71). Students with
high academic performance are grouped together so that more advanced
lessons could be taught to them; this is, of course, in response to their ability to
learn faster than their counterparts, and also taking into account the idea that
students in the higher sections are more knowledgeable on many academic
areas than their other school mates (Hallinan & Sorensen as cited in Ballantine,
1997, p.73). The practice of ability grouping is beneficial to our society when
considering “the need to utilize the talents of the most gifted members” of the
studentry (Ibid, p.120). The grouping of poor performing students into lower
sections is basically intended to help them keep in-pace with other well-to-do
students through lessons and teaching strategies which seem to be appropriate
with the levels of their abilities and capacities in learning.
Applying the concept of functions by Robert K. Merton, implies an idea
that one of the manifest functions6 of Homogenous student sectioning is to teach
6
The conventional meaning of function in the structural-functionalism perspective is the
consequence of an action, activity, role, practice or a part performed by a unit of a social
organization that is beneficial to the maintenance and survival of the organization’s whole social
system or social order. Manifest functions are those that are intended or recognized, Latent
functions are unintended or unrecognized (Merton, 1957, pp. 60-69), while Dysfunctions are
consequences and practices that seem to be detrimental, causing imbalance, to the social
organization. The latter includes the non-obedience, non-adherence, or non-pursuance of
p. 16
students according to their perceived abilities and capabilities in learning.
Included also in the manifest functions are the rationales held by the school
administrators in choosing the homogenous student-sectioning technique. Some
latent functions and dysfunctions of the practice on selected variables have been
explored in this research when considering the labeling involved in Homogenous
student sectioning.
Homogenous student sectioning is a possible creator of hierarchy or
stratification among students based on their perceived abilities (e.g. previous
performance)7 as manifested by the sections they presently belong. In this
research, students’ sections at Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School were
categorized (stratified) into higher, average (middle) and lower sections;
however, there could be no clear dividing line among those three.8
Social Stratification (or hierarchy) among students involves social classes.
Ogburn and Nimkoff (as cited in Ronquillo, Peralta, Salcedo, & Zaide, 1989,
p.57) defined social classes as “two or more broad groups of individuals who are
ranked by members of the community into socially superior and inferior
positions,” applied to schools in this research: the higher sections and the lower
sections dichotomy. Adhering to such social class definition consequently
involves the idea of inequality; postulating that each social class has different
cultural ideals set in by the Manifest functions (e.g. Spouse beating instead of love and caring
between husband and wife –Panopio et. al., 2004, pp.14-15)
7
In application, if schools greatly value academic achievement, then higher sections (which were
homogenously grouped through evaluation of high grades and/or test scores –manifestations of
academic achievement) could receive great valuation from the school. This could lead to
different treatment between higher and lower section students.
8
Exceptions would be the two opposite poles of Section 1 and the last Section. There could be
no clear dividing line… since sections between the two opposite poles might have been, at
some point, attributed/labeled as being higher or lower sections.
p. 17
levels of access/acquisition/control on “social resources,” particularly prestige,
power, and material resources (Marger, 2000). These social classes are
institutionalized, “patterned” or “regularized” constructions of our society
(Ronquillo et. al., 1989, p.56); thus, belonging to one of those two (or more)
involves meanings and attributions that were legitimized through time.9 These
belief systems (attributions and meanings) have been oversimplified into labels in
the course of time.10 Contemplating on Max Weber’s idea that social prestige is
also primary in studying social stratification (Panopio & Raymundo, 2004, p.11)
suggests that labels associated to student sections are manifestations of the
inequality on the acquisition of social prestige, and on some point, of power.11
Further, the researcher thinks that attributions and meanings connected to labels
do not cease as long as the majority of the people in a social setting
believes/perceives/and found materialized basis indicative to such labels, that is,
social stratification itself (i.e. grouping students into section 1, 2, 3... etc.).
9
People construct, and are being subjected to, meanings about their social life through time.
Since time is involved, it basically follows that these meanings are being passed, and
maintained (and are being reconstructed although not extensively) from generation to
generation through socialization, making them part of our culture.
10
An idea implicit from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_stigma ¶ 7, which states that “...the fact
that significant oversimplification is needed to create groups.” Oversimplified in the sense that
how one labels are based on the obvious, external matter, such as “black” or “white,” or
attributes that are easy to remember and to become our bases in distinguishing people. These
labels seem to be part of our culture; hence one could expect that labels have associated
meanings. One could also say that the concept of label here especially when connected to
groups draw near with the concept of stereotype. Stereotypes are “perceptions, beliefs, and
expectations a person has about members of some group…involve assumptions (usually false)
that all members of a group share the same characteristics” (Bernstein & Nash, 1999, p.497).
These two concepts are complementary since they are cultural constructions, hence, how one
labels may rely on stereotypes; conversely, stereotypes imply their presence through labels.
11
This is the case if someone would define power as the ability and/or capability of influencing
peoples’ thoughts and decisions. The conception and the recognition that someone belongs to
the upper class somehow could lead others to render different treatment with him, as compared
to a lower class counterpart. Conception of labels and relying on them could also constrain the
way people think of others-implying the concept of typifications by Alfred Schutz (Ritzer, 2004,
p.67).
p. 18
Adhering to such logic between stratification and labels causes us to consider
two basic theoretical claims significant to this research, (1) that Stratification, in
the course of time, produces labels; and (2) that labels are manifestations of
stratification. 12
Labels are structurally brought by the method of sectioning as well as by
their being historically and culturally created since homogenous student
sectioning has long been practiced in the Philippine education system. Also,
labels are interpreted and expressed interpersonally, that is, among interactants
mostly within the school environment, involving teachers, students, and the
school administration; thus, there is a need to asses the impact of labels on in-
school interactions.13 Charles H. Cooley ( as cited in Ronquillo et. al., 1989, p.56)
offered a theory on the principal conditions that favor social stratification, which
the researcher thinks would be useful; these are “(1) little communication and
enlightenment, (2) a slow rate of social change, and (3) marked difference in the
12
In case of a mixture of the two sectioning methodologies, the researcher thinks that
stratification would still exists, since the mixture method involves the creation of ability grouped
individuals (the possible higher sections) who have met the quota (qualifications) excluding
those who do not (the creation then of a heterogeneous lower sections), entailing the possibility
that higher section students could still enjoy the benefits of being at the top of the hierarchy.
Since social stratification can still be conceivably found on schools that practice the mix
methodology in student sectioning, then it logically follows that the labels associated with
homogenous ability grouped students—the labels higher and lower section student, together
with their associated meanings and attributions—would likely exist.
13
The idea that Labels are historically and culturally brought by the larger society suggests a
Structuralist orientation (Macro-oriented), while the idea that Labels could be interpreted
interpersonally by the interactants suggests an interpretive, Symbolic-Interactionist orientation
(Micro-oriented). The fusion of these two opposite perspectives in Sociology should not
demean the Labeling theory as a conventional S-I perspective. The fusion was done in order to
recognize that social constructions such as societal norms exist and affect how a person
interprets those labels and that people as interactants have also the capability to re-interpret
and re-establish (however, not always and constant) those labels based on their special needs
during specific circumstances. This framing puts this research within the Structural Symbolic
Interactionist framework. As what Sheldon Stryker (Turner, Ed., 2001, p.212) describes it “…by
examining ways in which social structures impact persons and interaction and the reciprocal
impact of persons and interactions on social structures…the concurrent emphases on agency
and constraint defining Structural Symbolic Interactionism.”
p. 19
constituent parts of the population.” These were the bases as to why this
research has included the interactions of students with their classmates, friends,
parents, teachers and the general audience (see definition of terms, p.42).
Frank Tannembaum simplified the concept and the act of labeling as

follows:
...is a process of tagging, defining, identifying, segregating,
describing, emphasizing, making conscious and self-conscious; it
becomes a way of stimulating, suggesting, emphasizing, and
evoking the very traits complained of.. (quoted in Hawkins &
Tiedeman, 1975, p.44)
This means that when an attribute or an expectation has been tagged
(said, verbalized) to a person, the attribute or expectation involved becomes
label. The person tagging, therefore, is in the act of labeling.
The Labeling Theory of Edwin Lemert (Hawkins et. al.,1975, pp.47-48;
Light & Keller, 1982, p.246; Johnson, 1986, p. 302; Trojanowicz & Morash, 1992,
p.69) identified the process and effects of labeling as (1) Primary deviancy,
meaning that the individual being labeled would first reject the label, and would
try ways and measures of conduct against the label, i.e. there is a degree of self-
insisting that he/she is not a deviant or the one being labeled so, “as long as the
accused can ignore or defuse the reactions from control agents, his deviation will
remain primary” (Hawkins et. al., 1975, p.47), people who are also unaware of
their deviant behavior or thinks that it is “trivial” (unimportant) also falls in this
type (Johnson, 1986, p.303); and (2) Secondary deviancy, wherein the label will
be internalized by the person so as to become part of his/her self-concept
(Money as cited in Panopio et. al., 2004, p.136). Thomas J. Sheff (as cited in
Hawkins et. al., 1975) expressed the same idea that the second type involves a
gradual change in role organization and also a change in self concept once
p. 20
“public/official”14 labeling/reaction occurs, resulting into the adaptation of deviant
roles suggested by the labels, hence implying the “self-fulfilling prophecy”
(Johnson, 1986, p.304). Self-fulfilling prophecy15 is central to labeling theory
since this entails the fulfilment of what is being complained of against a person,
as what Frank Tannenbaum said “the person becomes the thing he is described
as being” (quoted in Hawkins, et. al., 1975, p. 43). The term was first coined by
Robert K. Merton in 1948 with the meaning drawn from the classic theorem
Definition of the Situation by W. I. Thomas (Tauber, 1998, p. 4), describing it as
“in the beginning, a false definition of the situation evoking a new behavior which
makes the original false conception come true” (quoted in Webb & Sherman,
1989, p. 475; Light et. al., 1982, p.418; Johnson, 1986, p.180). The process
involved in the Secondary deviancy does not suggests an automatic acceptance
and acquisition of the deviant role by the person involved (Hawkins et. al., 1975,
p.47), this only suggests that gradually, the accused deviant will accept the label
because he has no other choice of coping, as what Erving Goffman (cited by
Light et. al., 1982, p. 246) wrote “one response to this fate is to embrace it.”
Another response is to look for support groups similarly labeled with what he/she
has (Johnson, 1986, p.303; Light, et. al., 1982, p.248) all resulting into the
adoption of a deviant life style (role) –hence, the fulfilment of the prophecy.
14
Official or Public reactions on deviancy involves the reaction of people, especially those in
authority, against the deviant behavior, meaning, the deviant behavior has been brought into
the consciousness and opposition of the public, thus, the act is not hidden. Informal (unofficial)
reactions come from friends and acquaintances (thus, the act is also not hidden) which may
deny or normalize the rule violations (Hawkins et. al., 1975, pp. 46-47).
15
According to Brinkerhoff, White, Ortega, and Weitz (2002, p.170), one of the major
contributions of Symbolic Interactionism is its recognition of Self-fulfilling prophecy as an
important “social dynamic…ways that social class statuses are reinforced.”
p. 21
The labeling theory is closely connected to deviancy; in fact, many labels
have been generated because of the occurrence of deviancy. In the labeling
perspective, deviance is a term suggesting a type of behavior or action straying
from the norms of a group; is defined and recognized by the group as straying
from their norms; and is a label attached to an act committed by a person,
meaning, deviance is the label attached to an act, and not the act itself.
Society defines the meaning of “normal” via convention, which may be
conscious (e.g. face-to-face discussion) or unconscious in manner (more implied
and not evident but existing; has been taken for granted). 16 The word and the
notion of being “normal” has been dependent on a shared definition (cultural) of it
by a considerable number of people, preferably the majority (legitimation). Thus,
any act or behavior by a member not considered as “normal” as defined by the
majority could be labeled as “abnormal,” hence, “deviant.”
Using these ideas would suggest that deviance is (1) an act labeled by a
group as straying with its norms, and deviance as (2) a deviation from what
society defines as “normal.” These two concepts could be contradictory to each
other, especially when one considers questions such as “what is normal?” and
“what if the majority of the people who defines a behavior as
right/conforming/ideal are unconsciously deviants?”17
16
In the last type, members just accept what they feel the majority is doing (or believing). The
word convention needs a considerable number or percentage of population, preferably the
majority, or else it would not be considered as a convention if there are only few people who
knew the meanings, in short, convention involves the process of legitimation. This legitimation,
again, involves time.
17
This is especially the case between “what ought to be,” or “ideal cultural pattern” and “what is,”
or “actual cultural pattern” (Ember & Ember, 1997, p.200). The understanding of deviance could
also be expounded by considering the three kinds of deviance defined by Panopio (et. al.,
2004, p. 130), namely (1) Approved deviance, (2) Tolerated deviance, and (3) Unapproved
p. 22
If the researcher would use the theory of labeling based on unapproved
deviancies, then, the researcher argues that the term would not be appropriate in
describing students who are, as the researcher assumed to, not delinquents (e.g.
killer, rapist, snatcher, drug pusher etc.). To avoid confusion and maintain unity
of statements, the researcher would not use the nature of deviance in Labeling
theory as what most Sociology books reviewed are referring to. Neither would he
categorize labels in this research as manifestations of approved or tolerated
deviancies in order to minimize, if not avoid, biases on meanings, categorization,
and interpretations.
Labels and their associated expectations and attributions affect the self-
concepts of higher and lower section students. Secord and Backman (1974,
p.414) defined self-concept as “an interlocking set of views that an individual
holds about himself as a person.” It involves “thoughts, feelings, and beliefs”
about one’s self, all as products of his “social and cultural environment”
(Bernstein & Nash, 1999, p.495). More interesting is Brinkerhoff’s (et. al., 2002,
p.56) definition, “thoughts about our personality and social roles.” In 1976, R.J.
Shavelson, J.J. Hubner, and G.C. Stanton (as cited in Mante, 1996, pp. 48-60)
found out that self-concept is multifaceted, and hierarchical. Figure 2 (see review
of related literature, p.59) shows their structure of self-concept. Their theory
about self-concept is that it is composed of four sub-areas of the general self-
deviance. Approved deviancies are recognized behaviors that move “in the direction of the
ideal pattern of behavior” (e.g. scientists, saint, hero etc.) (ibid). Tolerated deviancy is a form of
negative deviancy that has become widely accepted through time because of its persistent
existence, it is usually treated with toleration, but it does not mean that society favors the act.
Unapproved deviancies are types of behavior that violate mores and laws of a group or a
society. Society, in this last type, feels that its sacredness and peacefulness, together with its
tightly upheld values (mores) are threatened; hence, society reacts on those behaviors with
negative sanctions.
p. 23
concept namely “academic, social, emotional, and physical.” These are products
of reflections, criticisms, feedbacks, self-ascription, information, and
interpretations of the self based on his interactions or relationships with his social
environment18 (ibid). Each sub-area could have both objective and subjective
evaluation.
Academic self-concept refers to self-conceptions produced through
objective (e.g. grades) and subjective (e.g. Labels and attributions) evaluation
and dimensions of the self-concept in relation to his/her functioning/performance
at school, these of course, are also product of the student’s interactions with the
social environment. In this research, the objective evaluation on academic
achievement involves the students’ third year general averages, achievements
received, number of years as a student, and their participation in school-wide
activities.19 Subjective evaluation for academic achievement in this research
involves labels, expectations, and attributions connected to the students’ section
(higher or lower section).
Social self-concept refers to the self-concept derived from the different
relationships engaged in by the individual within his social environment. In this
research, social (space) environment was delimited into immediate (classmates,
peers, their teachers, and their parents) and non-immediate social sphere20 (--the
general audience, specifically other sections, other teachers, and the school
administration in general). Since social self-concept seems to be very subjective
18
Labels, expectations, and attributions are also forms of criticisms, feedbacks, information, and
ascriptions produced by/or are evident in the students’ social environment.
19
Objective evaluations here were mainly used only for the respondents’ profile (description).
They were treated here as intervening variables.
20
The researcher conceptualized these social spaces based on Edward T. Hall’s Proxemics.
p. 24
because there is no established way of “objectively--non varying, standard--
measuring and describing” as to how relationships function in each interactant to
produce their social self-concepts, the researcher made the determination of the
Social self-concept as wholly dependent on the type of pattern of social
interaction the respondents would determine in each in-school social relationship
given (particularly those belonging to the non-immediate social sphere).21 The
following are types of social self-concepts derived from each pattern of social
interaction (PSI) category used in this study: competitor for the PSI
competition, in conflict for the PSI conflict, different-equal roles for
differentiation; co-operator for cooperation; superior-subordinate for
domination; and having least care for toleration.
The discussion of labels and self-concepts are important as the former
affects the latter. According to George Herbert Mead, “people act in accord with
their self-concepts” (quoted in Trojanowicz et. al., 1992, p.69), this is the basis of
Lemert’s idea on secondary deviancy (ibid).
The discussion of labels affecting the self-concept has something to do
(affects) with the conception of distance between the self and the goal/aspiration
(including what to aspire). This is evident in Georg Simmel’s Theory of Distance

21
One could argue that social self-concept should be derived based on the students’ interaction
with their peers, classmates, and parents (primary group). The researcher thinks that the idea is
basically correct; however, reading Hawkins and Tiedman (1975) on their critique/interpretation
of the Labeling theory implies a different view. The two were both surprised when they realized
that most theorists of the Labeling theory come from the Symbolic Interactionist School, which,
from Mead to Cooley’s tradition of theorizing, are expected to give much emphasis on the
primary group. The reason is that there is an “untested assumption that official reactions in
public settings have a greater impact on secondary deviance than do informal reactions” by the
“primary group” (ibid, pp. 48 & 66). This, then, follows that interactions within the non-immediate
social sphere (i.e. public) could shed light on the type of social self-concepts students are most
likely to have within the school setting. The same book contends that friends and the significant
others (primary groups) could normalize deviant behavior, hence, could be self-restraining from
being involved in the labeling process.
p. 25
and Value wherein he posited that the things people value are those things
which they consider as attainable through considerable effort, those things they
conceive as too near to them –too easy to obtain, or too far from them –too
difficult to obtain, are of least value (Ritzer, 2003, p.53). The conception then of
label by the self, could be contributory as to how an individual sets distance
between him/her and the thing to be valued. To make the theory more useful to
education, the researcher equated the three types of distances into neglectable
(too near, i.e. academic achievement could be grabbed effortlessly), attainable
(not too close yet not too far, i.e. considerable effort is exerted for academic
achievement), and impossible (very far, i.e. academic achievement is impossible
so that efforts for it are useless). The self’s conception of distance between him
and academic achievement could be contributory to his motivation for his long-
term goal (strictly determined by the researcher as academic achievement).22
Academic achievement, as operationally defined in this research, means a
condition wherein a student has high grades, could have won curricular
(academic) contests, has a big chance to become one of the school’s cream of
the crop, has a reputation of being an academic achiever, and is being looked-
upon by his/her teachers, classmates, and other students.
Motivation has three basic processes: (1) the selection or recognition of a
motive (or reason for a behavior, such as value, goal –in this research, academic
achievement.), (2) selection of ways to achieve/satisfy/meet such motive, (in this
22
Although this theory seems to be individualistic, and as such could be placed in the field of
Psychology, it is Sociological in the sense that the social and cultural environment has
conditioned, or is conditioning the way a person considers the extent of distance (how far or
near) between him and his goal. Conception of labels (and associated expectations and
attributions) seems to be contributory to such.
p. 26
research: studying, joining contests, following school rules, and joining good
school organizations), and (3) persistence of behavior chosen until the
motive/value/goal is satisfied (see review of related literature, pp. 57-58). The last
process is what motivation in this research means, that is, persistence of
behavior (--the degree of aspiring academic achievement, and the degree the
chosen behavior is undertaken). Using this operational definition of motivation
would lead us to conclude that a person (a student) is unmotivated if his/her
behavior in actualizing the goal is not persistent (not sustained or long term).23
At the end, one should always note that the Labeling theory is not
concerned on the origin (ontology) of deviance; it is somewhat an extension of
role theory which is applied to the deviancy phenomena (Hawkins et. al., 1975).
In short, the Labeling theory concerns itself with tendencies on role acceptance
and deviancy perpetuation (as well as perpetuation of social stratification).
Through these theories, research questions were formulated and
analyzed. As evident in the presentation of these theories, they are, in this
research, interconnected. Thus, one could expect that in chapter 4, analyses of
data were done with reference to one, or any of these interconnected theories,
depending when the need arises.
23
The researcher needs to join the concepts degree of aspiring academic achievement and the
degree the chosen behavior is undertaken into one major concept, motivation, in order for this
research not to account for Merton’s ritualism.
p. 27
C. Conceptual Framework
Figure 1: The Research’s Conceptual Framework

(Main words in bold letters)
Interpretation and expression of

Labels in the form of
Main LABEL based on the status of the SECTION
Classmates Higher
Expectations and Attributions

Aspiration Motivation
Higher Section
Higher section students Academic for for
Sections Students Self-Concept academic academic
Lower section students (Objective & achieve- achieve
achieve-
Homogenous Middle Middle
Subjective) ment ment
Peers/Friends
Student- Sections Section
Sectioning Parents Students
(Pattern of)
Lower Student’s teacher Lower Social
Sections Section Interaction
Other teachers Students Social Self-Concept
Concept
School Administration
Cultural construction of meanings through time
Homogenous Student-Sectioning produces section-statuses of higher,
middle (average) and lower sections, resulting into stratification of students on
the basis of “how much” they possess what the school values (i.e. academic
excellence commonly expressed through high grades). Students of higher and
lower sections accompany the main label of being either a higher section
student or a lower section student. The term “higher section student” and “lower
section student” is being interpreted and eventually expressed by the students,
peers, parents and teachers and the school administration in terms of
expectations and attributions.24 These interpretations (expectations and
attributions) have the background Cultural construction of meanings through time
to recognize the exposure of the interpreters to meanings traditionally attached to
the higher and lower section student labels.25 These expectations and
attributions are being received, interpreted, analyzed, evaluated, internalized,
and sometimes expressed by higher section and lower section students. These
labels, expectations and attributions are subjected to the acceptance (secondary
deviancy) or rejection (primary deviancy) of the students, which could affect their
Academic Self-Concept and Social Interaction. Positive and/or negative
subjective academic self-concepts (produced by labels, expectations, and
attributions) could affect the students’ aspiration and motivation for academic
achievement. Labels, expectations, and attributions could also affect the
respondents’ (pattern of) social interactions with their classmates, peers,
24
These expectations and attributes also become labels once they are tagged to an individual.
25
These attributions and expectations have been culturally produced by the practice of
homogenous student-sectioning over a long period of time. Teachers and school administrators
whom the researcher informally interviewed were cognizant that they were sectioned
homogenously when they were spending their elementary and high school years.
p. 29
parents, their teachers, and the general audience. The pattern of social
interaction engaged in by the respondents’ with these people produces their
social self-concept.
D. Statement of the Problem

The present study has sought to know the effects of labels, expectations,
and attributions produced by Homogenous Student-Sectioning to the higher
section and lower section senior students of Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High
School S.Y. 2008-2009 on selected student-related variables, specifically their
aspiration and motivation for academic achievement, their academic and social
self-concepts, and their social interactions. To answer the main problem, the
researcher formulated the following specific problems.
1. What are the characteristics of the higher section and lower section
students on the following: sex; age; socioeconomic status; their 3rd yr.
average; number of years they spent as students since grade 1;
involvement in school activities; awards received; and on how they were
sectioned in elementary?
2. What type of student-sectioning technique/methodology/arrangement
Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School has?
3. What are the expectations and attributions associated with higher section
and lower section students?
4. Which of the two types of deviancy appeared the most with JCMPHS’
higher section and lower section senior students? What are the subjective
academic self-concepts of these students?
p. 30
5. What is the overall attitude of higher section and lower section students
regarding their aspiration for academic achievement?
6. What is the overall perceived distance of higher section and lower section
students between them and academic achievement?
7. What is the overall attitude of higher section and lower section students on
their motivation for academic achievement?
8. Do labels affect higher section and lower section students within their
immediate social sphere of interaction? What patterns of social interaction
they have within their non-immediate social sphere of interaction?
9. What are the social self-concepts of higher section and lower section
students?
10.What is the overall attitude of higher section and lower section students on
the over-all benefit of Homogenous student-sectioning and the labeling
that they are experiencing on their personal growth?
E. Significance of the Study

The study about student-sectioning and its possible effect on the
aspiration and motivation for academic achievement, academic and social self-
concepts, and social interactions of higher and lower section students would be
significant to the following area and groups of people:
1. A contribution to the field of Sociology of Education –this study was
pursued as the researcher’s contribution to the field of the Sociology of
Education. The study is a contribution to the literature debate of
tracking or untracking students which some educational sociologists
p. 31
have already given their efforts (i.e. studies, articles, journals),
independently or in collaboration with educators and educational
psychologists. This work is also a manifestation that Sociology has
also the capacity on explaining highly regarded psychological terms of
self-concepts and motivations (and not Psychology alone).
2. To the Teachers and School Administrators –although not all, most
teachers and school administrators are socialized with the conception
of giving high value on individual student functioning based on his/her
grades. Hence, when students are grouped according to their grades
(a technique suggesting the homogenous student-sectioning type),
there is a tendency to prioritize and give high merit to those students
who occupy the higher sections. This study sought for possible effects
of labels, expectations, and attributions on their students’ aspiration
and motivation for academic achievement, academic and social self-
concept, and social interactions with entities within the school. At the
end, they should asses whether homogenous student-sectioning is still
beneficial to all parties concerned.
3. To the Students –by reading and understanding this research, they
are expected to be able to recognize their social situations and
functioning as students not solely on their individual functioning but
also on the functioning of different social forces (relationships, distance
and value, the labeling, etc.) within their social environment.
p. 32
F. The Setting of the Study
The study was conducted at Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School
(JCMPH), a public secondary school located at Barangay Payatas, District 2,
Quezon City, Metro Manila. The school is under the supervision of the Office of
the Division of City Schools -Quezon City (QC Division Office) of the Department
of Education (DepEd)-National Capital Region (NCR).
The school was founded on July 7, 1987 as an annex of Lagro High
School (named as Payatas Annex). In April 2002, the school became
independent from Lagro and was named Payatas High School. Through, QC
Ordinance No. 1698 S. 2006 passed on July 17, 2006, the school’s name was
changed to Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School (JCMPHS).
What makes the location of the school distinct from others is that it is near
the Payatas dumpsite, a controlled garbage dump site by the local government of
Quezon City which receives garbage loads from other cities in Metro Manila
every day, thus, one could expect that there are numerous junkshops along the
way, and large, fast moving dump trucks passing all-day in front of JCMPHS.
Surrounding the school is a vast area inhabited by members of the urban poor
population, while in its front is the walled MWSS-La Mesa Watershed. The school
is near from Payatas B. and Payatas C. Elementary Schools. At its back is a
covered court, a BPSO outpost, the Villa Gracia Homes Subdivision, the Quezon
City Drug Treatment and Rehabilitation Center, and a satellite station of PNP-
QCPD Station 6. It is far from the Payatas Barangay Hall and far from major
markets --Commonwealth Market, Manggahan, and Litex. Justice Cecilia Muñoz
p. 33
Palma High School is at the “halfway” of the Manila Gravel Pit Road (one of QC’s
“gate way to the east”) which from Commonwealth, Quezon City leads to
Montalban, Rizal. One could reach JCMPHS with minimum fare in the pocket by
riding a public jeepney with route URBAN/Montalban which terminals at
Commonwealth Market and IBP-Litex Road Intersection, Brgy. Commonwealth.
Like other public schools in Quezon City, JCMPHS has 5 days of classes.
The school has two shifts of classes –the morning and afternoon. More or less
half of each year-level sections are found on either of these two shifts. Thus,
there are senior sections in the morning and in the afternoon so as with the other
year levels.
Despite structural and managerial changes at Justice Cecilia Muñoz
Palma High School during the past twenty years of existence, the school still
experience scarcity on material resources. This has been aggravated by the
influx of students in every enrolment season.
The research’s whole data gathering procedure was conducted from
January 5 - 9, 2009, third grading of the school year 2008-2009.
G. Scope and Limitation of the Study

The study has the title Labeling as a consequence of Homogenous
Student-Sectioning at Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School and its
subsequent effects on selected student-related variables.
The research gave emphasis on labels, expectations, and attributions
produced by homogenous student-sectioning. It focused not on the labels of
individuals but on the labels of large groupings (i.e. higher and lower section
p. 34
students) and how they possibly affect the aspiration and motivation for
academic achievement, academic and social self-concept, and social interactions
of students belonging to those sections.
The term social interactions has been delineated into two scopes: (1)
Immediate Social Sphere which includes interactions with the peers, classmates,
the students’ teachers (e.g. their advisers and their subject teachers) and their
parents; and (2) Non-immediate social sphere which includes the patterns of
social interaction engaged in by the student-respondents with the general
audience, i.e. between sections, sections and teachers, and sections and the
school administration. Paradoxical to the word interactions, the sides of the
parents, teachers, friends, and school administrators26 were not consulted.
The phrase patterns of social interaction has been delineated into one of
the following: competition, conflict, cooperation, differentiation, domination, and
toleration.
The study has only answered the questions posed in the statement of the
problem.
Although with great importance, the researcher has not given too much
emphasis on factors other than labeling created by student sectioning, such as
the effects of economic and psychological background of each students which
could have affected his/her functioning as a student academically and socially.
Intervening variables included in this study (i.e. academic profile and
socioeconomic status) were only used to describe the respondents; other
26
Except, in some cases, inclusion of statements by some school administrators derived through
informal interviews during data gathering
p. 35
intervening variables were not included in this research, however their existence
were recognized. This research is also not interested in deviance. The notions of
primary and secondary deviancies here were only used to describe whether
students accept or reject labels (and expectations and attributions) associated to
being a higher or a lower section student. As long as right terminologies for the
phenomenon do not exist, those would be enough for this time.
The term socioeconomic status in this research was used only to describe
the respondents. Indicants to it have been delimited to the following:
respondents’ annual family income, number of members of their families, and if
the respondents are working.
The term academic profile has been delimited to the following: number of
years in school, third year average, number of back subjects, number of years
being at the higher or lower sections since first year, participation in school wide
activities, and achievements received as a student of JCMPHS since first year.
In the conduct of the study, the researcher met constraints and external
factors which make his research limited in many aspects:
The researcher lacks travel funds, thus, constraining him to validate his
theory to other secondary schools, forcing the researcher to focus only on the
case of Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School which is near his home.
Some information and resources were not made available for the
researcher by other higher research and educational institutions because of their
organizational policies which unluckily was not met by the researcher. This was
exemplified by the UP main library and UP-CSSP library wherein administrators
p. 36
(as represented by their guards) do not allow undergraduate students from other
universities to gain access to their library resources, and the Frank Lynch Library
at the PSSC wherein, at the time when the researcher was looking for related
literatures, its administrators (as said by the guard) have already stopped
entertaining researchers almost two years ago.27 Thus, the researcher has no
sufficient knowledge if there were other studies by Filipino sociologists who might
have conducted their inquiries on the topic before his own undertaking.
Constraints on access to full-text foreign researches were met by the
researcher since financial and geographical constraints disabled him to visit
foreign libraries just to verify results of foreign research literatures that were cited
in this study. The researcher also lacked the means to download softcopies in
the internet if ever that they were available.28This research’s review of related
literature relied heavily on citations of researches found in books, theses,
journals, and articles that were reviewed. The researcher was not able to find the
most feasible way of verifying the existence and accurateness of those materials,
hence, have relied heavily on honesty and goodwill of the authors of books,
theses, journals, and articles where they were found.
Financial constraint was a factor as to why most of the researches and
literatures cited in this study were only located to those institutions which have
provided their library services for free (i.e. PUP lib., DepEd lib., Q.C. lib.). Several
days (not continuous) were spent at The National Library because the researcher
lacked travel funds. At The National Library (TNL) Filipiniana Section,
27
This is what the guard told the researcher when he, again, tried to visit the library on December
19, 2008. His first attempt was in December the previous year.
28
Some of them are books and are for sale via the internet.
p. 37
researchers were only allowed to view theses and dissertations dated 1990 up to
the present. Such organizational policy is detrimental to this research since there
are a considerable number of theses dated 1960’s-1980’s which seem to be
related to the present study. Financial constraint was also the reason as to why
the researcher has spent only a day at the PNU library theses-dissertations
section, hence, was not able to thoroughly scan all the racks for the inclusion of
additional research literatures. PNU is the primary tertiary educational institution
in the Philippines which has specialization on Education, since the researcher
was not able to take full advantage of its rich research resources on education,
the researcher has no concrete idea as to whether his topic has been already
explored by someone taking master’s or doctoral degree in education.
The entire study was done in the researcher’s senior year as a
requirement for graduation, considering his tight schedules especially on CD, CO
and OJT weeks, implies time constraint. As a consequence, the research itself
would be done in less than one year period, enough to finish an undergraduate
thesis, but too short to prove and test the thesis in a professional way (that is,
more extensive and wide scoping).
The researcher’s lack of knowledge on psychological testing constrained
him to consider achievement levels and intelligence variables used by Robert
Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson in their 1968 study on the Pygmalion Effect.
Time constraint, financial constraint and for practicality reasons as well,
caused the researcher to sample respondents only from the three highest and
p. 38
three lowest senior sections. The senior sections considered in the sampling
were all morning shifts.
Time constraint and financial constraints also caused the researcher not to
conduct reliability measures (i.e. post testing) for this research. Those constraints
restrained him to validate the positions of respondents who did not answer some
items in the questionnaire.
Time constraint caused the researcher not to compute confidence
intervals and sampling errors. The researcher, however, believes that since he
used a form of random sampling, then percentages and means derived through
computations would be estimates of the population parameters.
The researcher is cognizant on his limited capacity in theorizing and
sociologizing phenomena related to education. As a student, he is in the process
of becoming a sociologist, thus, any shortcomings that could come out from the
theoretical framework and the conduct of the study as a whole are being asked
for forgiveness and understanding.
The reader should bear in mind that the concepts and theories included in
this research are more complex in reality than the way the researcher presented
them here. One should understand that they should be simplified, in a sense, in
order for them to be easily understood and tested.
Results of this study apply only to the higher and lower section senior
students of Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School S.Y. 2008-2009, but could
also be found relevant by students and school administrators of other schools
p. 39
which have considerably large student population, and are in-practice of
homogenous (or a mixture of homogenous-heterogeneous) student-sectioning.
H. Definition of Terms
All definitions included here were operationally defined except for the word
Aspiration (constitutively defined).
1. Academic Achievement –condition wherein a student has high grades,
could have won curricular contests, has a big chance to become one of
the school’s cream of the crop, has a reputation of being an academic
achiever, and is being looked upon by his/her teachers, classmates, and
other students.
2. Academic Profile –has been delimited to the following: number of years
in school, third year average, number of back subjects, number of years
being at the higher or lower sections since first year, participation in
school wide activities, and achievements received as a student of
JCMPHS since first year.
3. Academic Self-Concept –refers to self-conceptions produced through
evaluative (objective, e.g. grades) and descriptive (subjective, e.g.
smart) dimensions of the self-concept in relation to the self’s interactions
with the social environment.
4. Aspiration –according to Geddes’ and Grossets’ Universal Webster’s
Dictionary (1993, p.45), the word means “a strong desire to attain
something high or great.” In this study, it means the act of aspiring, or
wanting, to have academic achievement.
p. 40
5. Attitude –Krech, Crutchfield, and Ballachey (quoted in Young & Schmid,
1966, p.351) defined it as “an enduring system of positive or negative
evaluations, emotional feelings, and pro or con action tendencies with
respect to a social object.”
6. Attributions (Expectations) –interpretation and operationalization of the
main labels by the peers, classmates, significant others, and the general
audience. They also become labels ones they are tagged to any
individual (or group).
7. Competition – (Kompetisyon) happens if there are two or more groups
competing to achieve a common goal (e.g. winning a contest, valuable
resources, to get the attention or sympathy of a valuable person [or the
majority of the population] etc.). Competition has rules (e.g.
sportsmanship) unlike conflict. Implied in it is to surpass one another
through excellence.
8. Conflict – (Away) “rules of competition are broken... [as] opposing parties
become openly antagonistic” with each other (Panopio, 2004, p.191).
Physical (e.g. hitting), verbal (e.g. nagging), and mental (e.g. moral
damages) abuses may be involved.
9. Cooperation – (Kooperasyon) a harmonious relationship of mutual
dependence with one another for their common improvement. It implies
the working hand-in-hand by different groups towards the realization of a
common goal.
p. 41
10. Differentiation –“creation of interests results in individuals’ or groups’
needing or wanting different things or services rather than the same
thing” (Panopio, 2004, p.197). This creation of new interests has the
function of avoiding conflicts between groups with common interests.
11. Distance –the being neglectable (too near), attainable (through
considerable effort) and impossible (too far) of academic achievement to
students due to the conception or consideration of labels that has been
tagged to them.
12. General audience –other students, other teachers, and the school
administration which have no personal/immediate/direct/ or sustained
contact with the asked group (respondents, sections). These groups of
people are within the Non-immediate social sphere of interaction.
13. HSS or HSSsbp–Higher Section students subsample population
14. Homogenous student sectioning –basically implies the creation of
sections with students having most likely similar mental abilities and
capabilities. How students are chosen to be part of each Homogenous
section is basically done with reference to student’s previous grades and
results of objective tests (scores). Between class ability grouping (or, in
the simplest term, ability grouping) and tracking are synonymous to
Homogenous student-sectioning.
15. Immediate social sphere of interaction –social space (environment)
which respondents are more likely to have influence with and be
influenced by their classmates, peers, teachers and parents.
p. 42
16. Label –in this study, means the label of being either a higher or lower
section student. They always accompany attributions and expectations
from the peers, classmates, parents (family), teachers, and the general
audience. Expectations and attributions also become labels once they
are tagged to any individual.
17. LSSs or LSSsbp –Lower Section students subsample population
18. Mw –weighted mean
19. Motivation –in this study, refers to persistence of behavior—degree in
aspiring for academic achievement and degree the chosen behavior is
undertaken—towards the fulfilment of the goal –academic achievement.
20. Non-immediate social sphere of interaction –social space (environment)
where the respondents are more likely to have no influence on people
within that social space. It is where the (other students from) other
sections, other teachers, and the school administration could be found.
21. P1 and P2 –Questionnaire’s Part 1 and Part 2
22. Patterns of Social Interaction (PSI) –or types of, in this research, was
delimited and categorized into one of the following: competition, conflict,
cooperation, accommodation, and differentiation.
23. Peers –respondents’ friends, excluding classmates.
24. Sectioning –the act or practice of grouping student into sections (section
1, 2, 3 etc.). There are two types/technique of sectioning students, (1)
Homogenous Sectioning, or ability grouping of students, and (2)
Heterogeneous sectioning.
p. 43
25. Section-status- the being higher or lower of a certain students’ section.
26. Self-concept –according to Brinkerhoff (et. al., 2002, p.56), is a term
concerning “thoughts about our personality and social roles.”
27. Social self-concept –is the self-concept derived from the different
patterns of social interaction (PSI) engaged in by the individual within the
non-immediate social sphere. These are the following: competitor for
the pattern of social interaction competition; in conflict for conflict;
different-equal roles for differentiation; co-operator for cooperation;
superior-subordinate for domination; and having least care for
toleration.
p. 44
Chapter 2
Review of Related Literature
The Review of Related Literature consists of two major parts, the
conceptual literature section and the research literature section. David Fox (cited
by Sevilla, Ochave, Punsalan, Regala, & Uriarte, 1992, p. 48) defined conceptual
literature as consisting of “articles or books written by authorities giving their
opinions, experiences, theories, or ideas of what is good and bad, and desirable
and undesirable within the problem area.” On the other hand, Research literature
consists of “published reports of actual research studies done previously”
pertaining to the matter (Ibid). In practice, unpublished researches are also
included provided that they are reliable (e.g. researches coming from well know
universities and prominent research organizations).
The researcher came up with this organization of related literatures: Part 1
contains conceptual literatures which have no distinction between local and
foreign sources, Part 2 contains research literature containing subparts A (foreign
studies) and B (local studies), while Part 3 contains the relationship of previously
presented literatures with the present study. The researcher contends that in the
presentation of conceptual literature, coherence and continuity of essential points
are important in order to develop a unified idea (coherent argument) on the topic
presented, thus, a thematic review; this implies what H. Cooper calls as an
integrative review (as cited in Creswell, 2003, p.32). This arrangement, the
researcher believes, would help readers to follow how the researcher has derived
his understanding of the concepts used in this research. Research literatures
p. 45
need to be separated into foreign (A) and local studies (B) to present the
“academic status” of the topic both in foreign and local settings.
Part 1: Conceptual Literature
Education and its schools: what ought to be.
People value Education, as manifested by their large expectations in the
performance of schools. These expectations manifest themselves through
various visions, missions, purposes, goals, and aims by concerned authority
figures (i.e. the government through DepEd, the whole public school system, the
elders, existing ideologies and belief systems). According to Reeve (1996), the
purposes of education are the following:
…to foster high student achievement; to develop in students the

personal resources they need to meet the requirements they will
face in their personal lives and society at large; to cultivate in
students a love for learning; to optimize students’ development
which includes progress towards autonomy or self-regulation
capacity for positive interpersonal relationships, a healthy sense
of self and identity; and to support the individuals’ successful
adjustment in the society. (Reeve, 1996, pp.13-14)
Facts and Figures on Philippine Education (DECS, Oct. 1995, p.12)
reiterated DepEd’s (DECS then) aim that “Education should realize the fullest
potentials of all individuals” and that “Education should enable persons to meet
their needs and satisfy their wants.” The former is a challenge to the Education
system in harnessing and utilizing talents, skills, and potentialities of members of
the society (especially the youth), which the department believes, is the only way
of achieving common and shared national goals, while the latter refers to
education as a mean in finding better employment opportunities so people could
be able to sustain their lives (i.e. food, clothes, shelter), it also implies
p. 46
encouragement for academic researches and undertakings which, if successful,
would aid people to adapt effectively with the environmental challenges present
in their daily lives. The same report also stated the need to empower the least
able and ennoble the most capable.
Education…should empower the least able and ennoble the

most capable. Despite the range of our individual differences in
means, motives, and prospects; education should universally
and equally challenged the most advanced, encourage those
who lag behind, and nurse those who are lost. (DECS, 1995,
p.1)
These are part of DepEd’s philosophical belief about the potentials of
human beings regardless of their identity and background, that these
potentialities could be actualized through education. The belief and hoping about
potentialities and their actualization in all individuals is part of expectations
people have in democratic settings. This is because Democracy recognizes
equality, humanity, freedom, and justice. The article also implies that there are
great expectations for educational institutions to apply, practice, and develop
principles of democracy as they carried out their function of educating the youth.
Education and schooling in the Philippines are also valued by the people,
especially those at the lower class since they perceived it as a medium in
improving their conditions in life (i.e. socioeconomic status).
Contemplating on the first part of the same article implies a need for a
reward system in educational settings to merit people who perform best. The last
part of the article suggests the assistance needed by, and should be given to,
least capable students (“those who lag behind and those who are lost”).
Considering this implies that Homogenous student-sectioning, and the inherent
p. 47
social stratification of students produced by it (through their sections), produces a
system of rewards and punishments in sectioning by placing top performing
students to the highest, most prestigious, section, while placing poor performing
students to the lowest section.
Sociologists see the functions of education-as-a-social-institution from the
most conservative to the most critical points of view. Included in the conservative
sides are views saying that schools should give equal opportunities to students
“by balancing the various elements of the social environment” so that they could
“escape the limitations of the social groups in which they were born” (Ronquillo
et. al., 1989, p.143); and that schools have the function of assimilating persons
from diverse backgrounds to a common curriculum resulting into the creation and
maintenance of a common cultural base (Colon, 2002, p.131). Conversely,
critical views made special emphasis on how reproduction of social classes takes
place at school.
School culture functioned not only to confirm and privilege

students from the dominant classes but also through exclusion
and insult to discredit the histories, experiences, and dreams of
subordinate groups. (Henry Giroux in Freire, 1985: xv)
The ideas about the creation of common cultural base and that school
culture reproduces social classes are important in understanding possible
reasons why Homogenous student-sectioning and the labels, expectations, and
attributions associated to it perpetuate up to this date. Labels, expectations, and
attributions produced by Homogenous student-sectioning became part of the
cultural base imposed to students (at least unconsciously). Homogenous
student-sectioning has long been practiced in the Philippines, thus, labels,
p. 48
expectations, and attributions produces and perpetuated by it became legitimized
through time.
Homogenous Student sectioning: a form of Social Stratification?
Student sectioning is basically an adaptive mechanism performed by
schools to effectively manage the great number of students over the limited
number of teaching and supervising staffs. Elementary and high school student
enrolees are grouped into sections with assigned rooms and advisers. The
manner of sectioning, or how students are grouped into sections (e.g. section 1,
2, 3…etc), varies on methodologies, standards and principles adopted by
different schools. According to Ballantine (1997, p.71) these variations are
dependent on the different organizational structures, structural constraints, and
the school’s atmosphere or culture. Basically, there are two generally known
methodology of sectioning: (1) homogenous sectioning (producing Homogenous
sections) and (2) heterogeneous sectioning (producing heterogeneous sections).
It is this act of selecting and placing students into sections which call the
attention of education sociologists who are sensitive to social inequality to give
special attention on the matter by conducting social researches (Ibid).
Heterogeneous sectioning involves the creation of sections with students
having, aside from diverse backgrounds, various abilities and capabilities in
learning. It is also composed of students with different inclinations and interests.
Schools that strictly adhere to such principle produce no stratification of students
based on sections since all sections are perceived to have students of diversified
p. 49
abilities, capabilities, and interests. Thus, Heterogeneous student-sectioning
produces sections of equal ranking.
Homogenous sectioning basically implies the creation of sections with
students having most likely similar mental abilities and capabilities in learning.
Selection and Allocation – schools are like gardeners; they sift,

weed, sort, and cultivate their products...Standards of
achievement are used to channel students into different
programs on the basis of their measured abilities... (Colon, 2002,
p.131)
Ballantine (1997, p.71) states that most school administrators and
teachers around the world prefer ability grouping since they feel that teaching
ability grouped students would be easy. Goodlad (1984, p.151) further explained
that “tracking... [is] a device for endeavouring to reduce the range of differences
in a class and therefore the difficulty and complexity of the teaching task.” Slavin
(2003, p.298) also expressed the same idea. How students are chosen to be part
of each homogenous section is basically done with reference to students’
previous grades and results of objective tests. Objective tests usually take the
forms of achievement tests, ability tests, aptitude tests, and IQ tests. These tests
are used as a meter stick to know what and how much students have learned
during the past schooling experiences. Ballantine (1997, p.49) noted that
“schools use exams at various checkpoints to track...students and to ensure that
students are achieving at grade level, since schools are held accountable by the
community for their activities...” hence, tests have not loose their prominence and
necessity in formal education settings through time.
p. 50
In a school setting with high valuation for academic excellence and
achievement (most schools adhere to such valuation),29 adherence to the
principle that specialization results to excellence could be noticeable (e.g.
homogenous student-sectioning). Most schools would likely to focus on curricular
(academic) rather than extracurricular activities (e.g. sports), hence, when
sectioning students based on previous grades and/or results of exams, schools
could create stratified sections: with the highest section containing students who
obtained high grades and/or tests scores, and with the lowest section containing
students who obtained the lowest grades and/or tests scores.
The very rational adherence of schools to previous grades and test scores
in sectioning and in determining the fate of students has drawn both support and
criticisms. Many, especially sociologists, question the validity of IQ tests and
ability tests, including its biases and composition, doubting if intelligences are
really being measured by IQ tests.30
29
Our society is meritocratic (based on merits), since Schools are ideological tools of the society,
they are also meritocratic.
30
Although psychologically speaking, intelligence is the sum total of all cognitive processes and
skills of an individual (Zulueta et. al., 2004, p.262), to the common people, intelligence and
being intelligent is mostly connected to having a form of expertise in Science, Mathematics,
English, and those subjects that require serious thinking tasks: in short, common people
perceived intelligence as those connected to mental activities. More bodily activities such as
talents for singing, dancing, acting and sports are valued but not considered as forms of
intelligence although in Psychology they are. Thus, one would hear something like “mga bobo
naman yang mga athletes na yan” and “mga BPE lang.” Human intelligence as a whole is
abstract. Dr. Howard Gardner even believed that all humans possess at least seven areas of
intelligence (Ibid, p.265). However, society only recognizes and gives value to the
logical/mathematical intelligence; nature smart; and the verbal/linguistic intelligence. This is
evident since most of the jobs available in the job market and most of what college students in
the country are taking are related to these specific intelligences (e.g. Call center agents and
English teachers abroad for the verbal/linguistic intelligence). One strong proof of this
prioritization of certain types of intelligence is the different units assigned by the curriculum to
each subject. In the 2002 BEC (Basic Education Curriculum), the Science subjects were given
2 units, English and Math have 1.5 units, Filipino with 1.2 and Makabayan (AP, TLE, MAPEH,
and Values Ed) with 3.7 units. Concerning human intelligences’ abstractness, the following
statements could be thought: (1) one major and institutional tool in measuring intelligence is the
p. 51
Ballantine (1997) also stressed the problem identified on ranking people based
on their perceived ability through tests scores:
All of the studies point to the problem of ranking or classifying

people on the basis of scores that are unreliable or changeable
and that are influenced by environmental circumstances. They
also suggest that intelligence – as typically measured –is not a
fixed, inherited attribute but a variable depending on stimulation
and on cultural and environmental factors. (Ballantine, 1997,
p.51)
Lumpkins, Parker, and Hall (1991, p.135) quoted Adler (1984)31 on his
feelings that people “have no real reason to believe that the basic potential of a
normal child who is a low achiever is less than that of a child who is relatively
high achiever.”
Grouping “mentally gifted” students together into higher sections would
psychological benefit them since the school (through the teachers) would likely to
give them advanced methods of teaching and special programs (Raywid, 1998,
p.69; Ballantine, 1997, pp.73-74), all efforts adhering to the principles of
psychology regarding special training for the gifted. Since these students belong
to the cream of the crop, there is a tendency that they would win the favor of
teachers and administrators, as a consequence, they should also have to
maintain their position by performing what society (teachers and school
administrators) expects them to do (roles).
Intelligence tests (IQ tests). However, the fact that no intelligence test measures the native
capacity of individuals independently from their background of experiences; that IQ test score
could be affected by not considering the native language of the examinee (e.g. A Filipino
student taking up an IQ test written-in-English); and that no intelligence test sample all
intellectual functions to an equal degree (Zulueta et. al., 2004, p.52) would suggest that
Intelligence tests are not firm bases in determining the future or absolute ability of individuals
and that they only suggest probabilities. Further, IQ is not constant (ibid). Since IQ is not
absolute, as well as tests related to it, it logically follows that results driven from those tests are
only reflections of the whole (range of intelligence of a person). Scores derived from aptitude
tests and achievement tests may also imply the same.
31
Proponent of “Adlerian Theory” with the basic idea that people strive to become better or more
perfect that the inferior creature they perceive themselves to be (Tulio, 2000, p.137).
p. 52
Is Homogenous sectioning a threat to Democracy? Ballantine (1997)
presented the dilemma of separating the “gifted” into special classes:
Societies need to develop and utilize the talents of their most

gifted members, but this presents dilemmas and controversies in
democracies: To single out some students for special treatment
or training is to give advantage to some and create an elite
intelligentsia, yet if ability is considered regardless of other
factors, such as family position, we are developing and utilizing
needed resources… (Ballantine, 1997, p.120)
Homogenous student-sectioning could produce conditions that could be
considered as discriminatory on the part of students belonging to lower sections.
The curriculum provided for boys and girls labeled as low

achievers, as well as the instructional methods used by teachers,
often do not measure up to those provided for students identified
as high achievers. The discrepancy was never the intent of
teachers who used ability grouping, but it was found to be a
result of the technique (Dawnson, 1987; Slavin, 1988) (as cited
in Lumpkins et. al., 1991, p.135)
Problems of identification and how students should be “grouped,”
criticisms about the unreliability of tests and scores, including the word
intelligence and how it should be measured (Ballantine, 1997, p.50),
discriminatory practices and issues; and conflicting values between democracy
and the society’s need to tap and develop skills of the gifted students are some
of the issues confronting education sociologists on student sectioning issue.
Labeling inside the school
Homogenous sectioning and the consequent creation of stratified sections
involve the labeling phenomenon for students of both higher and lower sections.
It is through homogenous student-sectioning which higher and lower section
students are exposed to labels, expectations, and attributions made for them by
the society (mostly communicated through expressions of teachers, parents and,
p. 53
to some extent, themselves). These labels suggest roles which higher and lower
section students are expected to perform. Homogenous student-sectioning also
tends to legitimize (to make acceptable) the meanings conveyed by the labels
produced by it (e.g. higher section students are expected to be intelligent
students. The fact that students with high grades are assigned into the higher
sections could be a legitimizing factor that higher section students are really
intelligent).
Parental expectations have great influence on students’ achievement
(Horton & Hunt, 1985, p.296), so as with teacher expectations.
Teachers have expectations on their students. These expectations are
affected by the students’ sex, SES, race and ethnic identifier, appearance,
neatness, usage of language, current achievement based on past performances
(“halo effect”), seating position, and tracking (Brookover et. al. as cited in
Ballantine, 1997, p. 75-76).
Teacher expectations are manifested in the teachers’ behavior

toward and treatment of individual children and their grouping of
the children in classroom situations. Children pick up the subtle
cues; the “self-fulfilling prophecy” can cause them to believe that
they have certain abilities and can influence future behaviors.
Many teachers in schools with low-achieving students become
discourage about the children’s ability to learn. Their
expectations for student learning are reduced, creating that self-
fulfilling prophecy in which teachers expect less and students
give less. (Ballantine, 1997, p.76)
The literature previously stated taps what sociologists and psychologists
call the self-fulfilling prophecy. It is a part of the Labeling Theory wherein the
labeled (expected) lives up the traits being tagged to him (i.e. with acceptance,
self-concscious). As what Frank Tannenbaum (quoted in Hawkins et. al., 1975,
p.44) said “the person becomes the thing he is described as being.”
p. 54
People have tendencies to judge over things which, they think, conform or
contradict with/against their values and norms. These judgements are easily
carried out through labeling. Cangelosi (1999, p. 94) is certain that “judgemental
language” tends to purport expectations by the labelers, such as a teacher
saying bright to a student. “Judgemental language verbally labels behavior,
achievement, or person” (ibid). The use of judgemental language has both
benefits and pitfalls. Depending on the adjective used, positive labels tend to
encourage the one being labeled to show the same behavior when the same
circumstance (comparable to those which the labeling was first evoked) arises.
Negative labels, in the most idealistic sense, should cause the individual being
labeled to change his behavior for the sake of conformity. However, depending
on existing power relations between the labeler and the person being labeled, the
latter could take labels as his inherent traits: thus a change in self-concept, as
well as a change in the individual’s role organization. At school, Congelosi
(1999, p.94) argues that teachers should avoid labeling students as “slow
learner, poor reader, bright,” and “scientific minded” as these labels could be
internalized by the students and be part of their self concepts. Labeling suggests
“elitism” since the labeler sorts individuals based on how much they acquire what
he values: “to label such students as ‘bright’ is to unwittingly label those who do
not grasp the concept [or lesson] as ‘dull” (ibid). Power relations are involved
since teachers are in the authority when teaching (and) inside the classrooms:
thus, if labels would come from them, students, recognizing that their teachers
p. 55
are authoritative figures, could be passive in accepting what their teachers say,
including labels pertaining to their perceived performances and characteristics.
Any one could be labelers, not only teachers. A person is in the act of
labeling if he is tagging certain characteristics, judgements, and evaluations to
another person, causing the latter to be conscious of his behavior and/or
characteristic being complained of (Tannembaum as cited in Hawkins et. al.,
1975, p.43). Labeling, as stated above, involves power relation, but the concept
does not strictly apply between two persons, nor if the person tagging belongs to
the significant others (e.g. parents and teachers) of the one being tagged, since a
collective of people tagging could also be powerful (public). In fact, Hawkins and
Tiedeman (1975, p.66) were quite surprised that majority of the proponents of the
Labeling Theory are Symbolic Interactionists who have special emphasis on the
role of significant others, or primary group, in developing and influencing the self-
concepts of individuals.
Implicitly then, labels connected to student sections (higher and lower
sections) could have possible effects on students’ aspirations and motivation for
academic achievement, their self-concepts, and their social interaction with
others.
Aspiration and Motivation
According to some dictionaries, aspiration means “a strong desire to attain
something high or great” (Geddes’ & Grossets’, 1993, p.45; Webster’s, 1966,
p.30; Collins, 2004, p.43). Aspirations are examples of Psychological Motives
p. 56
(e.g. the need for achievement, Zulueta & Paraso, 2004, p. 216). In this research,
the term refers to the act of aspiring, or wanting, to have academic achievement.
Motivation is at the center of psychology (Tulio, 2000, p.45). It refers to an
internal condition or state that directs/impels behavior or activity towards a goal,
satisfaction of needs, drives, and wants (Zulueta et. al., 2004, p.209). Tulio
(2000, p.46) described it further as an “intervening variable involved in arousing,
directing, and sustaining behavior.” She further argued that motivation “does not
account for a single good or bad performance,” it is also “inappropriate to
attribute lapses in performance quality to ‘poor motivation’ or to explain discipline
problems among students deduce to ‘wrong motivation” (Ibid, p.46). Motivation is
a complex process which involves persistence of behavior, meaning, as a
process, it consumes time and is not confined to short-time energizers designed
to elicit desired behavior immediately (Ibid, p.47). Perhaps, what Tulio’s definition
of motivation is offering is an educator’s perspective of what motivation is. Based
on the researcher’s analysis of the two books (Tulio, 2000: and Zulueta et. al.,
2004), the Psychological meaning of motivation offered by Zulueta significantly
differs with that of Tulio. Considering that drives (physiological needs) are
components of motivation in Psychology would automatically say that some
motivations need not be time-consuming, as for example, the need for food,
which if not sustained for a long time, would starve any individual to death. Also,
based on the researcher’s analysis of these two text books, he could say that
Zulueta’s concept of “psychological motives” bears the closest resemblance to
p. 57
Tulio’s definition of motivation, since psychological motives32 would be time-
consuming and needs persistence of behavior. Since motivation is a process
(and, again, attributed to Tulio), it involves steps or stages. Although the two
books did not offer these steps or stages, through context clues (and
contemplating on the matter as well), the researcher came-up with these three
motivation stages: (1) identification or the recognition of the need, aspiration, or
interest (either physiologically or psychologically, even socially driven), (2)
choosing the course of action (behavior) to be undertaken, and (3) persistence of
(chosen) behavior until the motive is satisfied. Of these three stages, what made
the researcher interested is the persistence of behavior. To make this research
more beneficial to educators, he set academic achievement as the goal (stage
1). He then considered the normative means in achieving the goal (i.e. studying
hard, joining contests at school, following school rules, and joining good
organizations at school) –stage 2. Finally, he tends to measure the degree of
persistence of behavior the students have in fulfilling the goal (–the degree of
aspiring academic achievement and the degree the chosen behavior is
undertaken).
The last assertion implies that if a student is unmotivated in pursuit for
academic achievement, he would likely to show least interest in academic
matters since he would find no meaning and reason for him to render efforts and
actions for such. “People who are high in achievement motivation generally
32
Psychological motives include the need for affection, achievement, independence, status and
security (Zulueta et. al, 2004, pp. 216-217) –as one could observe, some motives cited are
social in nature i.e. individuals should be involved in social processes in order for them to have
such.
p. 58
choose challenging activities, for them ‘the harder the conflict, the more glorious
the triumph” (Zulueta et. al., 2004, p.217).
Do labels, expectations, and attributions really affect how higher and lower
section students aspire and are being motivated for academic achievement? This
was explored in this research.
Academic and Social Self-Concept
Labels, expectations, and attributions for higher and lower section
students affect their self-concepts.
Shavelson, Hubner, and Stanton (1976) (as cited in Mante, 1996, p.48-50)
found out that self concept is multifaceted and hierarchical. Figure 2 shows their
structure of the self-concept.
Figure 2: Shavelson’s, Hubner’s and Stanton’s Structure of the Self-concept
Figure 2 shows that “perceptions of the individual are derived from
interactions with significant others, self attribution, and over-all experiential
aspects of the social environment” (Mante, 1996, p.49). From the very base (L4),
p. 59
information, criticisms, feedbacks, comments, and evaluations both objective and
subjective given by the social environment are received by the individual. These
“bunch” of information from the environment are interpreted and sorted out by the
individual into different categories. Newly added information join/clash /are
modified with/by other existing perceptions and evaluations (L3), resulting into a
collection of information about the self on different categories, academic and
non-academic, at L2. Subareas (L2) then consolidate to become the general self-
concept (L1). One of the following seven features identified by Shavelson et. al.,
is that self concept has both descriptive (subjective) and evaluative (objective)
dimensions (Ibid).
What made the model of Shavelon et. al beneficial to this research is that
it gave the researcher an idea as to what aspect of self-concept that must be
given special focus in discussing the possible effects of labels on students’ self-
concepts. Hence, the researcher chose academic and social self concepts as
dependent variables on students’ labels based on their sections.
Academic Self-concepts derived through considering grades (previously)
given by teachers (previous performance), achievements on academic contests,
tests scores, ordinal position of the students’ section etc. are obviously based on
the evaluative dimension of Academic Self Concept. The components of
evaluative dimension that was considered in this research are the students’
sections, former grades (3rd yr. gen. ave.), involvement in school wide activities,
and awards received. These components of the evaluative academic dimension
were used in describing the respondents. Although they may become bases in
p. 60
the generation and perpetuation of labels, they were not central in the analyses
of labels as effectors on the important variables of this study; they were primarily
used to profile the respondents. In the descriptive (subjective) side, the labels,
expectations, and attributions made and interpreted by the people surrounding
the students (respondents) became the focus of this study.
Social self-concept seemed to be very subjective since there is no
established way of knowing how social relationships function in each interactant.
Social self-concept is the self concept derived from the different types of
relationship (interaction) engaged in by the self (individual) with his peers,
significant others, and the general audience. Peers are friends of the self while
significant others is a group of people whom individuals tend to pattern their
behavior (Panopio et. al., 2004, p.106). The latter was specified in this research
as the parents and teachers of the students since they have been perceived by
the society as the models for their children/students. But the social environment
is not limited only to the peers and the significant others categories, hence, there
is a need to include the general audience which includes –at least and in this
research, is limited to –other students from other sections, other teachers, and
the school administration in general who have no immediate or direct (sustained)
contact with the respondents.
Social Interaction is the most basic area of interest in Sociology.
Sociologists are especially interested in studying the processes (rules, customs
etc.) that govern human interactions, most especially if these interactions
became regularized, recurrent, and patterned since it is on them which allows
p. 61
sociologists to make generalizations about social life. The basic types of patterns
of social interaction studied by Sociologists are conflict, competition,
differentiation, and cooperation (Panopio, 2004, p.186). Domination and
toleration (both forms of accommodation) would also be helpful in analyzing how
labels, expectations, and attributions affect the students’ social interactions with
groups of people within the school setting.
Considering the notion stated previously that the social self-concept is
derived from the different relationships (i.e. patterns of interaction) engaged in by
the individual with his peers, significant others, and the general audience,33 the
researcher was able to derive the following social self-concepts: competitor for
the pattern of interaction competition; in conflict for the pattern of interaction
conflict; different-equal roles for differentiation; co-operator for cooperation;
superior-subordinate for domination; and having no/least care for toleration.
33
In this research, only interactions with the general audience i.e. groups of people within the
non-immediate social sphere were used to derive the social self-concepts of the respondents.
See footnote no. 21, p.25.
p. 62
Part 2 Research Literature
A. Foreign Studies
Many foreign educators, psychologists, and sociologists gave efforts in
studying the effects of tracking/homogenous student-sectioning/ between-class-
ability grouping to different student related variables.
For instance, Goodlad’s (1984, pp. 151-157) research focused on possible
differences on the content of the curriculum from track (section-status) to track,
possible difference on instructional methods teachers used, and possible
differences on the social relationships of classes. He found out that (1) High track
students (higher section students) were more taught with college preparatory
topics than lower track students (more taught with vocational courses); (2) High
track students were given more instructions (theoretical, highly cognitive lessons)
than lower track students (“application of knowledge and skills”) during class
hours; (3) Teachers tend to demand “independent thinking behaviors” for high
track classes than they usually do for low track classes (teachers at low track
classes tend to demand “more conforming types of classroom behavior”); (4)
Effective instructional practices (teachers’ clarity, organization, and enthusiasm)
were given to high track classes than low track classes. “Only in the variety of
material available for learning did low track students appear to have an
advantage” (ibid); (5) High track students feel that “their teachers are more
concerned about them and less punitive toward them than did other students”
(ibid).This was primarily because teachers spent less time on them dealing with
problems on student behavior and discipline than they have with low track
p. 63
classes (ibid). Low track students, on the other hand, “feel that their teachers
were more punitive and less concerned about them than did other students”
(ibid). (6) High track students have more conducive environment for learning than
low track students (disruptive, “highest levels of discord in their classes”).
Goodlad also studied untracked classes (heterogeneous classes) and found out
that they mostly resemble the high track classes when it comes to class
performance, except, on some differences in curricular content. Goodlad further
noticed that “the assignment of students to... classes regarded as low...
predicts... diminished access to what... are being recognized as the more
satisfactory conditions of learning” (ibid).
Slavin (2003, pp.298-300) summarized some researches on tracking.
Below are some statements relevant to this study.
1. “Many teachers do not like to teach such classes [lower track classes]
and might subtly (or not subtly) communicate low expectations for
students in them” (Weinstein, 1996).
2. “Concentrating low-achieving students in low-track classes seems to
be harmful because it exposes them to too few positive roles” (Page,
1991)
3. “Perhaps, the most damaging effect of tracking is its stigmatizing effect
on students who are assigned to the low tracks; the message these
students get is that academic success is not within their capabilities”
(Oakes & Guiton, 1995; Page, 1991)
p. 64
4. .”..it often creates low-track classes that are composed predominantly
of students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds...while upper-track
classes are more often composed of children from higher
socioeconomic levels” (Braddock & Dawkins, 1993; Cooper, 1998;
Dornbusch, 1994).
Ballantine (1997) asserts that tracking (homogenous student-sectioning)
causes the emergence of “student cultures within each track.” This implies that
students of each section status (higher, middle, and lower sections) have
somewhat similar way of life (e.g. schooling experiences on treatment such as
the labels, expectations, and attributions attached to them by the society). It also
implies that each section status has attitudes, opinions, expectations, and beliefs
for other students belonging to other section status e.g. matatalino for higher
section students and mahihina ang ulo for lower section students. These “student
cultures within each track” could have consequences on how students behave
and perform at school; this was supported by the research of Slavin and Karweit
in 1982 (as cited in Slavin, 2003, pp.299-300) when they found out that the
percentage of absenteeism of some students rose to 26 percent when they
entered the tracked junior high school. Slavin pointed out that “the change
happened too rapidly that it could not be attributed entirely to characteristics of
the students...that the school was no longer a rewarding place to be (ibid).
Students who are assigned to high-ability groups, for instance,

receive strong affirmation of their academic identify; they find
school rewarding, have better attendance records, cooperate
better with teachers, and develop higher aspirations. The
opposite occurs with students placed in low-ability tracks. They
received fewer rewards from their efforts, their parents and
teachers have low expectations for them, and there is little
incentive to work hard. Many will cut their looses and look for
p. 65
self-esteem through other avenues such as athletics or
delinquency (Rosenberg, Shooler, & Shoenbach, 1989 as cited
in Brinkerhoff et. al., 2002, p.318)
Slavin, however, asserts that not all kinds of between-class-ability
grouping are disadvantageous, such as offering special advanced programs in
mathematics and reading for talented students. Contrary to this, Oakes in 1990
(as cited in Ballantine, 1997, p.74) reported that some research even question
the “pull out” of students from regular classes. Ballantine stated sympathetically
the findings of a recent research:
Most damning is a recent study showing minority students’

disproportionate placement in low-ability math and science
classes with the least-qualified teachers and less access to
computers, science equipment, and quality textbooks (Ballantine,
1997, p.74)
He also noted that “once students are labeled and grouped, there is less
chance of their moving from one category to another” (ibid).
Brookover (et. al., 1996, p.116 as cited in Ballantine, 1997, p.75) reported
that the practice (tracking) would result into two unfortunate consequences:
“more academic failure, and heighted racial and social class animosity.”
Slavin (2003, p.300) concluded that educators should know “that research
does not support between-class ability grouping [...and its significance on raising
academic achievement] at any grade level...that tracking should be avoided
whenever possible.”
Researchers have found that although ability grouping might

have slight benefits for students who are assigned to high-track
classes, these benefits are balanced by losses for students who
are assigned to low-track classes. (ibid, p. 298)
He further proposed that mixed-ability classes (heterogeneous sections)
could be more successful and effective if special needs and differences of
p. 66
students be met (e.g. within-class-ability grouping, tutoring, cooperative learning
strategies, etc.).
The hypothesis that heterogeneous student-sectioning is beneficial to both
“better students” and “poorer students” has been tested by many educators and
psychologists and have yielded favorable results, among them is J. R. Smithson
(1971) who conducted an experiment with high and low performing college
sophomore students who were sectioned homogenously in Physics I and II at
United States Naval Academy. At the end of the experiment, he found out that (1)
“better students do equally well in either homogenous or heterogeneous
sections”; and (2) “poor students do better when placed in heterogeneous
sections rather than homogenous sections” (ibid, ¶1). He also found out that
teachers “were grading students more liberally when teaching homogenous
sections of low ability” (ibid).
In spite of its many disadvantages, one could ask why homogenous
student-sectioning still exists today; Brinkerhoff (et. al., 2002, p.318) contends
that .”..from a conflict perspective is obvious: It perpetuates the current system of
inequality. From a structural-functional viewpoint, the answer is that it facilitates
administration.”
Many experts, however, argue that “success is dependent on small
student-to-teacher ratios, high expectations by teachers, extensive oral
communication in class, and experienced, effective teachers” (Gamoran, 1986,
Levine & Stark, 1993 as cited in Ballantine, 1997, p.75). The preceding quote
added other elements that complicate the issue of tracking students, since it
p. 67
somewhat tackles the material constraints public schools have. However, the
quotation only implies that the issue of tracking students, as well as the practices
brought by it, is very complicated. The quote also touches an aspect significant to
this research i.e. expectations.
Effects of teachers’ expectations on students’ performance was first made
known by Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson’s Pygmalion in the Classroom
in 1968. The term Pygmalion was derived from George Bernard Shaw’s play
Pygmalion (later on showed in the widescreen as My Fair Lady) (Tauber, 1998,
p.2). It refers to the self-fulfilling prophecy happening when teachers’
expectations somewhat become determinant to the future academic performance
of students. The article below summarizes the experiment done by Rosenthal
and Jacobson in 1968.
Accordingly, all of the children in the study were administered a

nonverbal tests o intelligence, which was disguised as a test that
would predict intellectual “blooming.” The test was labeled as
“The Harvard Test of Inflected Acquisition.” There were 18
classrooms in the school, three at each of the six grade levels.
Within each grade level the three classrooms were composed of
children with above average ability, average ability, and below
average ability, respectively. Within each of the 18 classrooms
approximately 20% of the children where chosen at random to
form the experimental group. Each teacher was given the names
of the children from his or her class who were in the
experimental condition. The teacher was told that these children
had scored on the “Test of Inflected Acquisition” such that they
would show surprising gains in intellectual competence during
the next 8 months of school. The only difference between the
experimental group and the control group children, then, was in
the mind of the teacher.
At the end of the school year, 8 months later, all the children
were retested with the same test of intelligence. Considering the
school as a whole, the children from whom the teachers has
been led to expect greater intellectual gain showed a significantly
greater gain than did the children of the control group.
(Rosenthal, 1997, p.4)
p. 68
Rosenthal (1997, p.10) noted that at the time their study was released,
there were already studies showing effects of interpersonal self-fulfilling
prophecies, which caused him not to be surprised with the results.
What surprise us was the finding that for those children who
were not expected to gain much in IQ (because they were in the
control group), the more they gained in IQ the more unfavorably
they were judged by their teachers. (Rosenthal, 1997, p.10)
The experiment done by Rosenthal and Jacobson in 1968, as well as the
hypothesis resulting from it (i.e. higher teacher expectations leads to higher
student academic performance), yielded more than 345 experiments and studies
(ibid, p.5) testing the hypothesis even to non-educational settings (e.g.
courtrooms nursing homes, and business). However, the results are inconsistent
(Hoge, 1979, p.6). Hoge argues that Rosenthal and Jacobson, and other
researchers who followed their work, may have oversimplified the phenomenon
regarding student achievement as well as the expectancy effect in general i.e.
Rosenthal’s causal model and the four-factor theory, as well as an alleged
serious methodological problems (ibid, pp.6-9). In his paper, Hoge discussed an
alternative model which is not too deterministic. At the end, he concluded that
teachers may have been affected by what he called as “irrelevant factors” (ie. sex
and race) in forming expectations to students, but he contends that most of the
time, teachers form their expectations based on their students’ classroom
behavior (“relevant factors”) and that generally they “are good judges... of [the]
potential and performance of their pupils” (ibid, p.11). He concluded his paper
with these:
I think where problems arise with respect to expectations, they

generally arise because of an unwillingness to change opinions
or beliefs about the child. Sometimes our judgements are wrong,
p. 69
and sometimes children do change, and, for these and other
reasons, it is important that we be continually critical of our
judgements and continually prepared to change the judgements.
(Hoge, 1979, p.13)
The discussion on expectations, especially the Pygmalion effect, only
proves that expectations by teachers exist, and somehow affect later academic
performance by students. The literature also suggests that expectations affect
attitudes of people towards others. One must contemplate that expectations do
not just come from teachers, as there are various social groups which could also
impose expectations to students, these includes peers, classmates, other
students belonging to other sections, other teachers, the students’ families, the
school administration. It is, in fact, true, the researcher believes, that teachers
form their expectations to their students base on the latter’s classroom
performance, but one should also recognize that stereotypes on students’
section-status exist (the being higher or lower section student), and may have
also become resources on how teachers form their expectations (at least
unconsciously, or has been taken for granted). These stereotypes, implied in this
research as labels, expectations, and attributions are potential resources of the
peers, classmates, parents (family), teachers, and the general audience in
casting expectations to students. Those expectations could possibly affect the
latter’s aspiration and motivation for academic achievement, self-concepts, and
social interaction.
p. 70
B. Local Studies
The study of Labuguen (1968) focused on the differences of stars
(famous, desirable, active) and isolates (less desirable) among grade six pupils
in Quirino Elementary School, Q.C. Through observation, interviews, and
analyses of the students’ performance, she found out that (1) there is “positive
relationship between social acceptability and intelligence” (ibid). Highly desirable
students (popular i.e. kind, considerate, active and alert, friendly, cooperative,
cheerful, and democratic in attitude) tend to have higher grades than less
desirable ones (ibid, p.121). Highly desirable students, she continued, also “tend
to be above average in intelligence class standing and in health” than less
desirable ones. Labuguen also noted that (2) “the emotional and social behavior
of the child is very much influenced by the group he belongs” (ibid). This was
supported by her findings that “pupils belonging to the [highly desirable] group
have lesser emotional and social problems than those in the isolate group” (ibid).
She concluded her research by saying that in order for children to have a more
adequate social relation with their peers; they “should overcome their personality
limitations and gain a greater sense of adequacy” (ibid).
Labugen’s study somewhat tackled left-out, isolated, and loner students.
These students, she found out, have low self-esteems and negative self-
concepts as compared to active, alert, and friendly popular (star) students. The
study pointed out that isolates tend to be loners because they lack high self-
confidence in joining groups and in dealing with matters in school life. She
contends that peers and groups tend to play a significant role in giving students
p. 71
social and emotional security, and that “social relationships and group
participation are...important factors” in children’s development (ibid). The need
for high self-confidence is emphasized in her research, which would only be
evident if students would be more cooperative, active, and friendly. The research
also implies that peers tend to function as support groups for students.
How groups accept members depend on whether a particular applicant
could meet their qualification measures. These qualification measures vary but
as to most groups, homogeneity in members is being sought (i.e. similar in
interests, hang-outs, ideas and beliefs, religion, etc.). Applying this on the idea
that higher section students occupy a prestigious position in the hierarchy of
students suggests that possible recruits (or applicants) should have similar
characteristics with that of the members of the group (i.e. both higher section
students). This could be disadvantageous to other students who belong to the
out-group—which, in Labuguen’s research implies a resemblance of her term
isolates (i.e. lower section students trying to get involved with the affairs of higher
section students and vice versa). The preceding idea somewhat debunks the
importance of purely individual effort in overcoming personality limitations since
there are operating factors outside someone’s control (i.e. group rules in
accepting members). It should be noted that lower section students are not also
(purely) loner students since they have their own peers and classmates which
could provide the social and emotional security they need (i.e. camaraderie,
pakikiisa, pakikiramay etc.). Higher section students, on the other hand,
somewhat resemble Labuguen’s term of socially desirable students (stars). They
p. 72
were socially desired since they were expected by the society to be “considerate,
active and alert, friendly, cooperative, cheerful, and democratic in attitude” (ibid).
Also, Labuguen’s assertion that “the emotional and social behavior of the child is
very much influenced by the group he belongs” (ibid) implies something: that
groups somehow affects the behavior of students, and that each group has its
own subculture.
The literary alleged possibility that differences on teachers’ treatment exist
depending on the track (section) that they were handling was debunked by some
researches, concluding that no difference on teachers’ treatment to students
exists. One of these researchers is Hernandez in 1995 who concluded that: (1)
“..there is no difference between the classroom discipline of [intermediate]
teachers handling the fast learner group than those in charge of the slow
learners” (ibid, p.72), and that (2) .”..in order for a teacher to be good or fair,
he/she must be consistent in the way he/she treats the students; does not show
favoritism; attends to the people first and foremost before himself/herself; and
encourages student participation” (ibid).
Would the practice of favoritism among classes/sections be likely to
lessen in the presence of the higher section-lower section dichotomy
(Homogenous student-sectioning)? The researcher thinks that it is possible, but
very difficult since teachers would likely want sections which seemly have
academically competent students. Would the presence of the higher section-
lower section dichotomy encourage students to participate in school-wide
activities? The latter was considered in this research, the former was not since
p. 73
this research does not include the opinions and attitudes of teachers of JCMPHS
regarding homogenous student-sectioning.
Majority of the studies stated previously were not primarily sociological34
except for Ceñidoza (2004) who conducted a case study of five high school
students of Vicente Madrigal Nat’l. H.S. regarding the labeling and stigmatization
that they experienced when they were pulled out from their sections and
resectioned to STAR section (STudent At Risk, --the lowest section) within the
same school year. Students at the STAR section were described in the study as
“problem students” –students who failed many subjects, students with serious
attitude problems, students with serious problem on truancy etc. (ibid, p.10, 53).
The research was primarily concerned on describing how labeling and
stigmatization may have caused the perpetuation of the students’ deviant
behavior. She found out that her respondents have either family or money
problems (or both); that her respondents were barkadista; that her respondents’
absenteeism and class cutting rose when they became STAR section students;
and that her respondents’ self-esteem became lower when the term “honor
society” were brought into their consciousness (ibid, pp.53-55). Interesting to
mention was how Ceñidoza linked the respondents’ family problem with their
being barkadista.
Ang suliraning pampamilya ang may malaking bahagi sa

problemang kinakaharap ng estudyante. Mas magulo ang
pamilya mas malaki ang posibilidad na maghanap ng ibang
bagay na pagbubuhusan ng panahon, walang iba kundi ang
barkada, kung saan nakakatagpo ng kaibigan at nakakaramdam
ng pagtanggap. (Ceñidoza, 2004, p.54)
34
Especially if one would consider the educational background of these researchers (majority of
them are psychologists).
p. 74
She concluded her research by saying that majority of her respondents
were secondary deviants, and have accepted and practiced the role suggested
by the label(s) imposed to them by their school system.
Sa tingin niya binuo ang ‘star section’ para mabago ang

paguugali nito. Nakaramdam siya ng pagkalungkot dahil sa isa
siyang ‘problem student’, alam niya na kasalanan din niya ito. Sa
pagkakalipat niya lalo siyang naging grabe. Para sa kanya, total
sinabihan ka na pangatawanan mo na. Bakit pa siya
magbabago, eh ganon na nga yung tingin sa kanya. (Ceñidoza,
2004, p.54)
Part 3: The Review of Related Literature and the Present

Study
The conceptual and research literature previously discussed provided rich
resource of ideas, insights, and explanations on how labeling, expectations, and
attributions could influence the dependent variables of this study; it was also in
this review where these concepts and ideas were linked. These interconnections
provided useful avenues on how the researcher would interpret his data in
chapter 4.
1. The review presented the concept formation of important terms and
variables used in this study i.e. aspiration, motivation, homogenous
student-sectioning (tracking), academic and social self-concept, and
pattern of social interactions. The review should somehow aid the
reader to understand those terms based on their operational
definitions.
2. The review presented related studies on a somewhat coherent picture
of situations of students placed in the higher and lower sections. The
rich body of foreign literature regarding tracking (homogenous student-
p. 75
sectioning) has raised issues on democracy as well as society’s need
to tap the most gifted members of the society.
3. The review, especially those cautions offered by Hoge (1979), made
this research to recognize the presence of intervening variables. It
reminds the researcher not to be too assertive that labels,
expectations, and attributions are the only important variables
(determinants) affecting the dependent variables.
4. Local studies reviewed were outdated, Homogenous student-
sectioning still exists today, this implies the need for an updated study
as well as to re-evaluate the practice based on the perceptions of the
students. The lack of local sociological studies on student-sectioning or
its non prominence on Filipino Sociology35 also made this research
valuable for such possible contribution.
As to the entire impact of the review of related literature to the researcher,
it has just aroused his curiosity to look once more the Homogenous Student-
Sectioning phenomenon at JCMPHS and contribute as well to the on-going
literature debate on tracking or untracking students. These ideas inspired the
researcher to pursue a study on homogenous student-sectioning at JCMPHS
using interrelated sociological theories discussed in chapter 1.
35
If the topic (student-sectioning) has gained too much attention by Filipino sociologists and
hence could have resulted into several studies, then why is that there are no pages in local
General Sociology textbooks allocated for the topic, neither citations pertaining to such exist?
This condition is contrary to foreign books wherein at least 2 pages were allocated in
discussing homogenous student-sectioning (tracking, between-class ability grouping).
p. 76
Chapter 3
Methodology
A. Research Design
This study is basically a descriptive research since it describes the
characteristics of the sample population (respondents) on the “what is” basis.
The approach of the study is mostly quantitative. The quantitative design
involves statistical treatment of data, and that data will be presented in numerical
forms. Conversely, data obtained through interviewing some school
administrators constitute this research’s qualitative side.
As a survey research, the present study accompanies the perceptions,
opinions, and characteristics of the respondents (thus, descriptive) in a massive
sense. The use of percentages and weighted means in summarizing and
presenting the respondents’ descriptions, attitudes, and characteristics puts this
research in the quantitative type. The use of survey is essential in determining
the present condition of the target population at Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma
High School S.Y. 2008-2009.
Although majority of the data presented are numerical in form, each datum
has their qualitative equivalent word description and interpretation.
1. Rationale in using the Quantitative Approach
A considerable number of sociologists and books consulted, including
previous theses at the PUP Dep. of Sociology, treated researches on Symbolic
Interactionism (including the Labeling Theory) as purely qualitative. This
approach is conventionally right (especially if someone would consider the
p. 77
debate on ontology and epistemology of knowledge). The researcher however,
decided to use the quantitative approach due to the following reasons:
1. The researcher hopes that his data could be generalizable.
2. The researcher does not what his research to be called for isolated
cases only. He thinks that qualitative data, particularly case studies,
are prone to such (due to small number of respondents). Sociologists
and other social scientists greatly value case studies (and there is no
debate about that), what the researcher contends is that social
scientists are not the only ones who would likely to read this research.
3. The researcher thinks that, since most of the research consumers in
the Philippines were trained in the old school, they would prefer (and
some how accept the authority of) researches that are quantitative.
B. Nature of Data
Data coming from answered questionnaires are the major primary data in
this research. Data obtained from unstructured interviews with some school
administrators, especially those that are relevant to answering specific research
problem number 2 are also primary. The researcher’s personal observations and
experiences which had been supplemental in describing the setting of the study
are also primary.
p. 78
C. Methods, Techniques, and Procedures in gathering Primary Data
1. Pretesting Period
The questionnaire was tested for face-validity and for the level of language
used (i.e. if the language used in the questionnaire is understandable by possible
respondents). It has also undergone major revisions as a result of the pretesting
done at Batasan Hills National High School last October 13-17, 2008,36
pretesting conducted for the development of some options, categories, and
concepts at PUP W617 by BSS 4-1 students on November 16, 2008, and
inclusion of suggestions through several consultations with his classmates,
teachers, and adviser. After securing the permit to conduct this research from the
DepEd-NCR-Quezon City Division Office (Div. Supt. Dr. Victoria Q. Fuentes) on
December 10, 2008; after having an oral permission to conduct this research
from the school administrators of JCMPHS (School Principal Dr. Juanita C. Alajar
and 4th year level chair Ms. April Cunanan) on December 17, 2008; and after
securing lists of students belonging to the three highest and three lowest senior
sections (sampling frame) on January 6, 2009, the questionnaires were mass-
produced according to the percentage of sample determined out of the target
population (50% of higher section and lower section students).
36
Questionnaire and permit at appendices A and B. The researcher first surveyed at Batasan
Hills National High School. At first, the intention was not to pretest the questionnaire but to
obtain final data for the study, but he later found out through several talks with Mr. Joey Mancia
(the school’s assistant to the principal) that Batasan was not anymore practicing Homogenous
Student-Sectioning. The only homogenous section, as what high schools of Bagong Silangan,
Lagro, and North Fairview also have, is the Star section (section 1) if not the first three or five
highest sections, and the rest of the students were sectioned heterogeneously. Realizing this
dilemma, especially the possibility that the present research could be invalid in such settings,
the only option left was to let the students to finish answering the questionnaires and to let the
results be complementary in developing another questionnaire for a more appropriate school,
thus, as what his adviser said, a pretesting unintentionally happened.
p. 79
2. The Conduct of Survey
The researcher devised a set of questions laid-in on a five-page-
questionnaire to be answered by the respondents. To minimize disturbance on
the respondents’ daily class routine, the questionnaires were presented to them
in envelopes on January 7, 2009. This technique allowed them to bring home the
questionnaires so they can thoroughly think and reflect on how and what to
answer. The mail type also increases the confidentiality and the secrecy of both
the respondents’ personalities and their answers. Questionnaires were retrieved
one to two days after the respondents’ receipt (January 8- 9, 2009).
D. Variables of the Study

The Independent variables in this study are the labels (i.e. Higher
Section Students and Lower Section Students), expectations, and attributions
associated to them and the section-status to which the student-respondents
belong (Higher Section and Lower Section). They are independent variables
since it is on them which dependent variables would (rely) be modified, i.e.
(Subjective) Academic Self-Concept, Aspiration and Motivation for Academic
Achievement, Social Interaction, and Social Self-Concept. Intervening Variables
included in this study, but were not given too much attention, are as follows:
respondents’ Sex, Age, 3rd yr. academic profile, socioeconomic status (SES),
student-sectioning type during elementary and number of years being at the
higher or lower sections). During the researcher’s ocular visits in the place, as
well as on several informal interviews with the principal and other faculty
p. 80
members and reasons given by the respondents in justifying their answers, he
had contemplated the following intervening variables which are out of scope
(existing only in citations) of this research. These are the following: personality
and personal disposition of students; subculture of friends (barkada); the culture
of poverty; and teaching strategies and volume of works teachers give to their
students. Intervening variables of the first type were only used to profile the
respondents. Intervening variables of the last type were only stated here to
recognize their existence which, in one way or another, could have influenced the
dependent variables under study. The researcher was not able to know the
extent of their effects.37
Since the researcher recognizes the existence of these intervening
variables, implying their possible effects (undetermined) on the dependent
variables, he has no basis to strictly claim that the labels solely affect the
dependent variables, or are solely accountable on the variation of scores
obtained by them (e.g. percentages, weighted means).
E. The Questionnaire and the Operationalization of Variables

Items (questions) in the questionnaire served as indicators of variables
that were under study. Data obtained from answered questionnaires became
significant in answering specific research problems stated in p. 20.
37
This is why this research falls within the descriptive type. Although the researcher has explored
relationships between variables and such could be argued that what he is actually doing is an
explanatory research, the fact that he did not explored the effect of intervening variables (test
factors [Cole, 1976, pp.31-51]) but has only recognized their existence and their possible
effects rightly puts this research into the descriptive type.
p. 81
The questionnaire has undergone face validation, pretesting, and
revisions. In considering the special needs of the respondents, specifically the
ease of answering as well as the ease of immediately understanding the
questions posed and the type of answers needed, the researcher has included
options (categories) on questions (items) in the questionnaire. These options
were derived from pretesting, theoretical construct, and common-knowledge.
Also, all items were freely translated by the researcher into the Tagalog language
so that respondents who were not proficient in understanding the English
language could answer the questions efficiently. In-text instructions were also
included to guide the respondents regarding the manner of answering. The
questionnaire has also included an introductory letter from the researcher so that
the respondents would be able to have a quick grasp as to what the research
and the questionnaire were all about. Questionnaires were sent to and retrieved
from the respondents, enclosed in envelopes.
Specific research problem number 1’s purpose was to get the
characteristics of the respondents, hence, it has generated questionnaire items
P1C, P1D, P1E, P1E.2, P1E.3, P1F, P1G.1,P1G.2, P1G.2.b, P1G.3, P1G.4, and
P1G.5 (Please refer to Appendix B. P1 means Part 1 of the Questionnaire)
These questions were included since the researcher thinks that these
were some of the intervening variables included in the study.
Specific research problem number 2 was formulated to know the
technique/methodology/arrangement Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School
has when sectioning students. The inquiry is significant since Labels (and
p. 82
associated attributions and expectations –the independent variables in this
study), theoretically exist if the manner of sectioning students is either
Homogenous or a mixture of Homogenous-Heterogeneous. Questions related to
this were answered by some administrators interviewed, hence, were not
included in the questionnaire (except for the last two related questions). These
were the questions asked to the administrators: (P2 means Part 2)
1. How do you section students?
2. What is (are) the basi(e)s in sectioning students?
3. What are the reasons why the school administrators have come-up
with such student-sectioning strategy?
4. Was the school administrators able to communicate (inform) the
sectioning type they used on their students?
5. Based on your perception, how were you and your classmates been
sectioned (P2B)?
6. What do you think are the bases as to why you were placed in your
present section (P2B.2)?
7. Based on your perception, how were you sectioned in elementary
(P2B.3)?
Questionnaire item P2B.3 was included in order for the researcher to have
a glimpse as to whether the student-respondents might have already been
exposed to labeling if they were sectioned homogenously in elementary.
p. 83
Specific research problem number 3 was designed to know the
expectations and attributions associated to higher and lower section students.
This generated questionnaire items P2C.1 and P2C.2 (Please see Appendix B).
Specific research problem number 4 deals with the question of label
rejection or acceptance, theoretically termed in this research as primary and
secondary deviancy. These generated items P2D, P2D.3, P2D.4, P2D.5, and
P2D.6. Adjoining the scores on some categories in P2C.1 and P2C.2 enabled the
researcher to derive the respondents’ subjective academic self-concepts
(whether positive or negative) through their attitudes on the expectations and
labels associated to them.
Specific research problem number 5 inquires if higher section students are
more aspiring for academic achievement than students labeled as lower section
students (and vice versa). This inquiry generated items P2E and P2E.2.
Specific research problem number 6 is the researcher’s attempt to apply
the theory of distance and value by Georg Simmel on the student-respondents’
aspiration for academic achievement. Questionnaire item P2F38 represents this
inquiry.
Specific research problem number 7 inquires if respondents labeled as
higher section students are more motivated for academic achievement than
students labeled as lower section students (and vice versa). This generated
questionnaire items P2F.2, P2F.3, and P2G.
38
The theoretical framework only defined three distances i.e. neglectable, attainable, and
impossible, however, the researcher wanted the respondents to have more options to choose
from. Meanings of distances with prefix very (e.g. very neglectable) only differ to a degree of
intensity with that of their root words (e.g. neglectable).
p. 84
Specific research problem number 8 asks if the labels, attributes and
expectations associated to the respondents’ section affect their social
interactions in their A. immediate (classmates, teachers, family) and B. non-
immediate social sphere (the general audience except item P2H.B.4). Inquiry on
the immediate social sphere generated questionnaire items P2H.A1, P2H.A2,
P2H.A3, P2H.A3.b, P2H.A4, P2H.A4.b and P2B.4.
Inquiry on non-immediate social sphere is intended to determine the most
likely to occur pattern of social interaction (PSI) in in-school relationships which
the respondents were mostly likely to be involved. The respondents were given
the terms competition, conflict, cooperation, differentiation, domination, and
toleration to describe the relationships given to them. This inquiry generated
questionnaire items P2HB.1, P2HB.2, P2HB.3, P2HB.5, and P2HB.6.
The researcher did not develop items relative to specific research problem
number 9 since this study made the determination of social self-concepts as
wholly dependent on types of patterns of social interaction (PSI) identified by the
respondents at P2H.B. The following are types of social self-concepts derived
from each patterns of interaction categories used in this study: competitor for
the pattern of interaction competition, in conflict for conflict; different-equal
roles for differentiation; co-operator for cooperation; superior-subordinate
for domination; and having least care or no care at all for toleration.
Specific research problem number 10 has Questionnaire item I, which is
intended to determine whether the sectioning and the supposed labeling that the
respondents were experiencing became beneficial on their self-development as a
p. 85
whole. This item was included in order to sum-up the benefits and/or the
disadvantages of the present sectioning practice. Analysis on this was referred to
as the manifest functions, latent functions and dysfunctions of the present
student-sectioning scheme.
F. Statistical Treatment of the Quantitative Primary Data

The researcher tallied the answers of the respondents in each item in the
questionnaire. These items and their accompanying number of responses were
tabulated. The number of responses (f) in each category was presented through
percentages.
Percentage formula:
f
P= × 100
N Wherein:
P –refers to Percentage
f –refers to the number of respondents who has
chosen a certain category.
N –refers to the total number of respondents
Categories with the highest percentage of responses in each subsample
population in each item (table) were highlighted for easy recognition. Items with
scaling (Likert like scales), on the other hand, were computed using the
Weighted Mean formula (Walpole, 1982, p.29):
N
Wherein:
?áXiWi
Mw –refers to the weighted mean
Mw = i=1
______
N N
?áXiWi –refers to the summation of all responses
i=1 (Xi) in each category multiplied by the weight
(Wi) assigned on it.
N –total number of responses
p. 86
Majority of items in the questionnaire used six-point attitude rating scales.
Results of computations using the weighted mean formula were interpreted using
the table below (an arbitrary table of values). At the left of the table are the
equivalent qualitative description for each weight boundaries, followed by their
equivalent italized words and phrases which were used verbatim in the
questionnaire. Also at the left of each row is the enumeration of items in the
questionnaire where these weights and equivalents apply.
Table 1: Weight Equivalents for All Rating Scales
Weight Weight Verbal description

Boundaries
5 4.51-5.00 • Strongly agree (P2C.1& C.2)
• Very accepted/Tanggap na tanggap (P2D; D.6)
• Very often/Sobrang dalas (P2D.2, D.3, D.4a&4b, D.5;
E.2; F.2; F.3; H.A.1, H.A.2, H.A.3, H.A.4; H.B. 1, H.B.2,
H.B.3, H.B.4, H.B.5, H.B.6; & C)
• The respondent is very much aspiring for academic
achievement/Gustong-gusto ko ng academic
achievement (P2E)
• Very neglectable (P2F)*
• Very motivated for academic achievement/Motivated na
motivated ako para sa academic achievement (P2G)
• Highly positive subjective academic self-concept for
higher section students in table 27B
• Very negative subjective academic self-concept for lower
section students in table 27B
4 3.51-4.50 • Agree (P2C.1& C.2)
• Accepted/Tanggap (P2D; D.6)
• Always/Madalas (P2D.2, D.3, D.4a&4b, D.5; E.2; F.2;
F.3; H.A.1, H.A.2, H.A.3, H.A.4; H.B. 1, H.B.2, H.B.3,
H.B.4, H.B.5, H.B.6; & C)
• The respondent is aspiring for academic
achievement/Gusto ko ng academic achievement (P2E)
• Neglectable (P2F)*
• Motivated for academic achievement/ Motivated ako para
sa academic achievement (P2G)
p. 87
• Positive subjective academic self-concept for higher
• Negative subjective academic self-concept for lower
3 2.51-3.50 • Undecided/Hindi ko alam (P2C.1& C.2; D, D.6)**
• Fair/Moderate/Katamtaman—not (too) frequent yet not
(too) rare (P2D.2, D.3, D.4a&4b, D.5; E.2; F.2; F.3;
H.A.1, H.A.2, H.A.3, H.A.4; H.B. 1, H.B.2, H.B.3, H.B.4,
H.B.5, H.B.6; & C)
• Undecided/ I may be aspiring for academic achievement/
moderate/ Naghahangad siguro ako ng academic
achievement (P2E)
• Attainable (P2F)*
• Undecided/ I may be motivated for academic
achievement/moderate/Motivated siguro ako para sa
academic achievement (P2G)
• Indeterminate subjective academic self-concepts for
higher and lower section students in table 27B
2 1.51-2.50 • Disagree (P2C.1& C.2)**
• Not accepted/Hindi ko tanggap (P2D, D.6)**
• Sometimes/Minsan (P2D.2, D.3, D.4a&4b, D.5; E.2; F.2;
F.3; H.A.1, H.A.2, H.A.3, H.A.4; H.B. 1, H.B.2, H.B.3,
H.B.4, H.B.5, H.B.6; & C)
• I am not aspiring for academic achievement/Ayaw ko ng
academic achievement (P2E)
• Very Attainable (P2F)*
• I am not motivated for academic achievement/ Hindi ako
motivated para sa academic achievement (P2G)
• Negative subjective academic self-concepts for higher
• Positive subjective academic self-concepts for lower
1 0.51-1.50 • Strongly disagree (P2C.1& C.2)**
• Strongly unaccepted/ Hinding-hindi ko tanggap (P2D,
D.6)**
• Rare/Sobrang minsan (P2D.2, D.3, D.4a&4b, D.5; E.2;
F.2; F.3; H.A.1, H.A.2, H.A.3, H.A.4; H.B. 1, H.B.2, H.B.3,
H.B.4, H.B.5, H.B.6; & C)
• I strongly dislike academic achievement/ Ayaw na ayaw
ko ng academic achievement (P2E)
• Impossible (P2F)*
• I am very much unmotivated for academic achievement/
Hinding-hindi ako motivated para sa academic
achievement (P26)
• Very negative subjective academic self-concepts for
p. 88
higher section students in table 27B
• Highly positive subjective academic self-concepts for
lower section students in table 27B
0 0-0.50 • The respondent do not care/Walang pakialam (P2D, D.6)
• Never/Hindi (P2D.2, D.3, D.4a&4b, D.5; E.2; F.2; F.3;
H.A.1, H.A.2, H.A.3, H.A.4; H.B. 1, H.B.2, H.B.3, H.B.4,
H.B.5, H.B.6; & C)
• The respondent has no care for academic achievement/
Wala akong paki-alam sa academic achievement (P2E)
• Very Impossible (P2F)*
• The respondent does not care for motivation (P2G)
*categories in item P2F were actually assigned with weights one number ahead of that stated here, for
instance, in the category Very Neglectable, it was actually assigned with weight 6 rather than 5,
however, for purposes of brevity and consistency, all categories in item P2F were reassigned with the
weights stated here. These new weights were used in computing the item’s weighted mean.
**attitudes undecided, disagree/hindi tanggap, and strongly disagree/hinding-hindi ko tanggap in items
P2C.1&C.2, D, and D.6 were actually assigned with weights 1, 3, and 2. However, for purpose of
consistency, they were reassigned with weights 3, 2, and 1. These new weights were also used in
computing the items’ weighted mean.
This research is mostly concerned with the comparison of answers made
by higher section and lower section students (i.e. comparisons of percentages
and means). This leads the researcher to consider bivariate analysis in the
presentation and analysis of data in Chapter 4. Bivariate analysis is commonly
used when subgroups of the sample population are being compared and/or
contrasted (Babbie, 2001, p.406). Aside from its descriptive purposes, bivariate
analysis also tackles relationship of variables through contingency tables (ibid).
Although bivariate analysis commonly involves regression and correlation
formulas in determining the strength of relationship between variables, Earl
Babbie, in his book The Practice of Social Research (2001, pp. 406-411),
presented a very simple manner of doing bivariate analysis using percentages.39
39
Earl Babbie (2003, p.411) contends that inclusion of raw numbers in the table is impractical,
saying “it’s redundant to present all the raw numbers for each category, because these could
be reconstructed from the percentages and the bases...the presentation of both numbers and
percentages often confuses a table and makes it more difficult to read.”
p. 89
Bivariate analyses in this research were patterned with that used and
demonstrated by Earl Babbie.
There are items (tables) in this research that were not percentaged down
and/or have proportion of respondents that did not answer, thus, they were
computed using different Ns (number of responses). This happened because the
respondents became free to choose the number of items in the questionnaire
which they want to answer (i.e. they were not forced to answer all questions).
Since this research has used bivariate analysis using percentages and weighted
means, generalizability of N matters. Thus, in order for each item to undergo
bivariate analysis, the two subsample population (higher section and lower
sections students subsample population) being compared must meet the N 20%
out-of-the-target-population requirement imposed by L. R. Gay in 1976 (as cited
in Sevilla, 1992, p.184); this serves as the Acceptance level for N in this study.
Items with N-subpopulations lower than the acceptance level will not undergo
(bivariate) analysis and further interpretation (except for special considerations
given to analyses on tables 39 and 41).
Confidence intervals of percentages and weighted means and sampling
errors were not computed in this research due to lack of time, as well as to save
effort. The researcher, however, believes that, as long as the respondents were
randomly sampled, he may then be able to estimate the parameters (Crow, 2006,
pp. 148). Therefore, means and percentages in this research only estimate (not
stating exactly) the true descriptions (parameters) of the target population.
p. 90
G. Sampling
Table 2: The Desired, Defined, and Excluded Populations
Desired (Ideal) Defined (Sampled) Excluded

All the students of Refers to ~50% Refers to ~50% Students
Justice Cecilia of students of of students of belonging to
Muñoz Palma High each section each section other senior
School belonging to the belonging to the sections.
three highest three lowest
senior sections senior sections All 3rd, 2nd, and 1st
(Alexander, ( Antoninus, year students
Napoleon, and Gandhi, and
Constantine) Hadrian)
Financial, man-power and time constraints restrained the researcher in
giving all the students at Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School the chance to
become respondents for this study. His budget, energy, and time only enabled
him to distribute questionnaires to ~50% of students belonging to the three
highest and three lowest senior sections. Sections considered in the sampling
were all morning shifts; students from other senior sections in the morning, all
senior sections in the afternoon, and the junior, sophomore and freshmen
students at JCMPHS constitute this study’s excluded population.40
The researcher used stratified systematic random sampling technique in
getting the elements of the sample population (the respondents). This sampling
procedure was chosen since the senior students’ population is divided into strata
40
Ideally speaking, the desired population is better for this research since the researcher’s
theoretical construct claims that there could be no clear dividing line between higher section
and lower section students. The dilemma is detrimental since there could be no way in claiming
that the majority of the students (the whole senior student population, or the whole studentry of
JCMPHS) say/feel that they are higher (or lower) section students; that the majority of the
students is either motivated or unmotivated for academic achievement, etc.
p. 91
(students’ sections).41 Since each stratum (students’ sections) has various sizes,
Proportional Allocation (Walpole, 1979, p.237) procedure was used.
Table 3: Distribution and Retrieval of Questionnaires
Senior Student ~50% Returned % of % of retrieved Required

(Retrieved) retrieval questionnaire N
Sections pop. (no. of
(20%
(target question out of the
-naire target Accep-
population)
distri- population tance
buted) level)
Three Highest sections
1. Alexander 69 35 32 91.43 46.38
2. Napoleon 71 36 36 100.0 50.70 201 x 0.2
3. Constantine 61 27 22 81.48 36.07
Total 201 98 90 91.84% 44.78% 40
Three Lowest sections
14. Antoninus 44 22 10 45.45 22.73
15. Gandhi 52 26 15 57.69 28.85 149 x 0.2
16. Hadrian 53 27 24 88.88 45.28
Total 149 75 49 65.33% 32.89% 30
More or less fifty percent of students at sections Alexander, Napoleon,
and Constantine were given questionnaires and the chance to belong to the
study’s Higher Section Students subsample population. The same percentage of
students from sections Antoninus, Gandhi, and Hadrian were also given
questionnaires and the chance to belong to the study’s Lower Section Students
subsample population.
As shown in table 3, the researcher gave questionnaires to 98 students
belonging to the three highest sections. After two days of retrieval, 90 of them
41
According to Ross (2005, p.10), “Stratified Random Sampling does not imply any departure
from probability sampling…it simply requires that the population be divided into subpopulations
called strata and that probability [simple random] sampling be conducted independently within
each stratum.” This sampling methodology is beneficial in lessening variability of the
respondents’ characteristics and responses rather than when general, ordinary random
sampling technique was used (Walpole, 1974, p.237) since each stratum would likely to yield
similar responses, thus, yielding a more precise estimate of the of-interest-population
parameter—percentages and weighted means in this research.
p. 92
were able to return the questionnaires. These 90 students constitute this study’s
Higher Section Students subsample population (HSSsbp).
Also shown in table 3, the researcher has distributed questionnaires to 75
students belonging to the three lowest sections. After the same period of
retrieval, only 49 of them were able to return the questionnaires. These 49
students constitute this study’s Lower Section Students subsample population
(LSSsbp).
L. R. Gay in 1976 (as cited by Sevilla et. al., 1992, p.184) requires that if
the target population is small, at least 20% of it should be sampled to enable the
researcher to generalize about the given target population. The two subsample
population generally passed this requirement (Higher Section students
subsample population, or HSSsbp constitute 44.78% of the 201 target
population, while the Lower Section students subsample population, or LSSsbp
constitute 32.89% of the 149 target population). The two subsample populations
constitute this study’s sample population (90 + 49).
This 20% requirement for N in each subsample population (Acceptance
Level for N) also applies to all items (tables) that were not percentaged down
and/or have proportion of respondents with no answer. As shown in table 3, at
least 40 respondents from the HSSsbp are needed in order to generalize about
the 201 higher section students target population. The table also indicates that at
least, 30 respondents from the LSSsbp are needed in order to generalize about
the 149 lower section students target population.
p. 93
H. The Respondents
The respondents in this descriptive survey-research were senior students
belonging to the three highest and the three lowest senior sections of Justice
Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School S.Y. 2008-2009. These student-respondents
were morning shift students and were following the DepEd BEC (Basic Education
Curriculum) program.
p. 94
Chapter 4
Presentation, Analysis, and Interpretation of Data
A. The Characteristics of the Student-Respondents
As noted earlier, these characteristics of respondents were considered as
intervening variables since they may, in one way or another, affect how
dependent variables behave. It was also noted earlier that these intervening
variables were taken only to profile the respondents.
1. Sex
Table 4: Distribution of Respondents by Sex (P1C)

Sex Higher Section Students Lower Section Students
(HSSsbp) (LSSsbp)
Male 31.11% 40.82%
Female 68.89% 59.18%
100% (90) (49)
Table 4 shows that majority of the student-respondents in the Higher
Section Students subsample population (HSSsbp) are females (68.89% or 62
respondents) while the rest are males (31.11%28 or respondents).
This is similar to the case of the Lower Section Students subsample
population (LSSsbp) wherein females (59.18% or 29 respondents) outnumbered
males (40.82% or 20 respondents).
The table shows that majority of the respondents in both subpopulations
were female students (HSSsbp’s 68.39% and LSSsbp’s 59.18%).
One might be tempted to find meanings on students’ behavior through
distribution of sexes, or gender in the two subpopulations. Earl Babbie (2001, p.
407), however, cautioned that behavior could not account for gender (many
p. 95
sociologists and psychologists adhere to the principle of gender preference),
meaning, one could not conclude that since there were high percentage of male
students in LSSsbp (40.82%) than in HSSsbp (31.11%), being a man (ex. on
intelligence) depends on what section-status (higher or lower section) a male
student belongs. This is similar to the case of female students who were more
concentrated in HSSsbp (68.89%) than in LSSsbp (59.18%). Adherents of
gender inequality would only conclude such.
One might contend on the differences of cultural practices and norms
wherein male and female children were brought up. This may account, however,
one should also note that boundaries on differences of gender roles began to
weaken since the 19th century (especially when women were allowed to vote in
Europe), and that this thinning of gender role boundaries are more evident today,
especially in the urban areas.
2. Age
Table 5: Distribution of Respondents by Age (P1D)

Age Higher Section Students Lower Section Students
20 and above 0 4.55%
19 0 2.27%
18 4.60% 11.36%
17 12.64% 25.0%
16 43.68% 50.0%
15 39.08% 6.82%
100% (87) (44)
No answer 3 5
Table 5 shows that there are 87 respondents in the HSSsbp who
answered item P1D, majority (43.68% or 38 respondents) of them were 16 years
old, 39% (34 respondents) of them were much younger with 15 years of age,
p. 96
12.64% (11 respondents) were 17 years old, and 4.60% (4 respondents) aged 18
years old.
Table 5 also shows that there are 44 respondents in the LSSsbp who
answered item P1D, majority (50% or 22 respondents) of them were 16 years
old, 25% (11 respondents) of them were 17 years old, 11.36% (5 respondents)
were 18 years of age, 6.82% (3 respondents) were 15 years old, 4.55% (2
respondents) aged 20=Ÿ

n, and 2.27% (1 respondent) were 19 years old.
The table also suggests that (1) there were more younger students (15
years old) in HSSsbp (39.08%) than in LSSsbp (6.82%); and that (2) there were
more older students in LSSsbp (25% + 11.36% + 2.27% + 4.55% = 43.18%) than
in HSSsbp (12.64% + 4.60% = 17.24%).
Table 5 shows that majority of respondents in both subpopulations were
16 years old. The table also shows that a significant percentage of respondents
(39.08%) in the HSSsbp were younger than the majority; comparing it to 6.82%
of the respondents who aged 15 years in the LSSsbp implies that higher section
students tend to be younger than lower section students. This claim is affirmed
when adding other percentages in the HSSsbp and LSSsbp within the 17 to ±20
age range (HSSsbp: 4.60% + 12.64% = 17.24%; LSSsbp: 4.55% + 2.27% +
11.36% + 25.0% = 43.18%). The researcher thinks that HSSsbp were younger
than LSSsbp because the former may have been enrolled in elementary by their
parents at a younger age than the latter. Do the latter imply that parents of
respondents in the HSSsbp enrolled them early to comply with the advance
mental state that they have? If parents of higher section students believe so, that
p. 97
their children were mentally gifted, then, the answer is yes. Parents of the
HSSsbp might have enrolled their children earlier as a response to what society
is demanding for gifted members of the society –that is, to train them in advance.
On the other hand, some lower section students might be older due to the
following reasons: (1) late enrolment and (2) repetition of grade level.
3. Socioeconomic Status (SES)
Table 6: Distribution of Respondents by Annual Family Income (P1E)

Annual Family Income Higher Section Students Lower Section Students
P 250,000 and over 5.56% 0
P 175,000-249,999* 1.39% 3.23%
P 100,000-174,999* 29.17% 16.13%
P 60,000-99,999** 38.89% 32.26%
P 40,000-59,999 15.28% 22.58%
Under P 40,000 9.72% 25.81%
100% (72) (31)
No answer 18 18
*these income classes are actually one category in the NSO Income Class categorization (NSO,
2006, table 2). The researcher divided that particular NSO income class into two to categorize
respondents who have, at least one, parents that are minimum/average wage earners into the
100k -174,999 income class. NSO’s Income classes here are up-to-date.
**the Annual Poverty Indicators Survey (APIS) in 2002 of NSO used this income class as the
poverty line. Below the broad line above was described by APIS as below the poverty line (¶3).
Table 6 shows that there are 72 respondents in the HSSsbp who
answered item P1E, majority (38.89% or 28 respondents) of them were poor,
29.17% (21 respondents) of them have families earning minimum/average wage,
15.28% (11 respondents) belong to the 40k-59,999 income class, 9.72% (7
respondents) of them wage less than P 40, 000 annually, 5.56% (4 respondents)
of them belong to the highest NSO income class, and only 1.39% (1 respondent)
belong to 175k-249,999 income class.
Table 6 also shows that there are 31 respondents in the LSSsbp who
answered item P1E, majority (32.26% or 10 respondents) of them belong to
p. 98
NSO’s poverty line income class (60k-99,999), 25.81% (8 respondents) have
annual family wage less than P 40,000, 22.58% (7 respondents) fall in the P 40k-
59,999 annual income class, 16.13% (5 respondents) belong to the
minimum/average wage earner income class, and 3.23% (1 respondent) belong
to the 175k-249,999 income class.
Relying on APIS 200242, the table suggests that more respondents in the
LSSsbp were below the poverty line (22.58% + 25.81% = 48.39%) than the
HSSsbp (15.28% + 9.72% = 25%). Adding responses at the poverty line income-
class to previous computations yielded another data, that more respondents in
the LSSsbp (48.39% 32.26% = 80.65%) were poor than respondents in HSSsbp
(25% + 38.89% = 63.89%).
Despite meaningful differences on the percentages evident in the
computations, table 6 basically shows that majority of the respondents in both
subpopulations were poor or economically challenged.
Table 7: Distribution of Respondents on the number of Household Members

(P1E.2)
Number of household Higher Section Students Lower Section Students
members
6 and above 47.73% 31.82%
5 and below 52.27% 68.18%
100% (88) (44)
No answer 2 5
Table 7 shows that 88 respondents in the HSSsbp answered item P1E.2,
majority (52.27% or 46 respondents) of them have five or less number of

42
NSO’s APIS 2002 (--the late APIS which was updated in 2003) as a point of reference
specifically in identifying income classes below the poverty line is outdated. Its use was due to
the researcher’s failure to find recent basis of poverty indicator (specifically income classes) in
the Philippines using the internet. To cope with the discrepancy (due to being outdated), one
could adjust the poverty line to 100k-174,999 income class since this income class presently
includes families earning minimum wage.
p. 99
household members, while 47.73% (42 respondents) reported that they have sir
or more number of household members.
Table 7 also shows that 44 respondents in the LSSsbp answered item
P1E.2, majority (68.18% or 30 respondents) of them have five or less number of
household members, and 31.82% (14 respondents) have six or more number of
household members.
Table 7 implies that more higher section students (47.73%) have bigger
family/household size than lower section students (31.82%). The table also
implies that more lower section students (68.18%) have families of average size.
Table 7 basically shows that respondents of both subsample population
have five or less number of household members.
Table 8: An inquiry if the respondents work (P1E.3)

Condition Higher Section Students Lower Section Students
Yes 4.44% 2.04%
No 95.56% 97.96%
100% (90) (49)
Table 8 shows the distribution of respondents queried as to whether they
were working or not. As the table shows, majority (95.56% or 86 respondents) in
the HSSsbp were not working; only 4.44% (4 respondents) reported that they
were engaged in working.
Table 8 also shows that majority (97.96% or 48 respondents) in the
LSSsbp were not engaged in working, unlike the 2.04% (1 respondent) who
were.
p. 100
Although with minute percentages, the table implies that more
respondents in the HSSsbp (4.44%) were engaged in working than respondents
in the LSSsbp (2.04%).
Table 8 shows that majority of the respondents in both subsample
population (95.56% in HSSsbp and 97.76% in LSSsbp) were non working
students.
Family size could aggravate the scarcity being experienced by poor
families. With inflation despite non-increase on wage earned, large families could
cut off, or lessen, expenses not important for their survival i.e. baon, fare,
expenses on school projects etc. Table 9 below implies something.
Table 9: Socioeconomic status

Sample Wage Family Size If the Respondents
population (n refers to wage) were working
HSSsbp 99,999=d n, 63.89% 5=dn, 52.27% No, 95.56%
n=•100k, 36.12% n=‰6, 47.73% Yes, 4.44%
LSSsbp 99,999=§n, 80.65% 5=§n, 68.18% No, 97.96%
n=Ð100k, 19.16% n=Ì6, 31.82% Yes, 2.04%
As shown in table 9, majority in the HSSsbp were poor, but the effect of
average family size (5 or less members) tends to lessen the scarcity that they
were experiencing. This enabled the majority of the respondents in the HSSsbp
to study without working, so as with the other respondents in HSSsbp with more
affluent conditions.
Table 9 also shows that majority in the LSSsbp were poor, but the effect of
average family size (5 or less members) tends to lessen the scarcity that they
were experiencing. This enabled the majority of the respondents in the LSSsbp
p. 101
to study without working, so as with the other respondents in LSSsbp with more
affluent conditions.
Material constraints are contributory to academic achievement of students.
Well-to-do families tend to support the education of their children through
providing them with more books, more time and incentives (e.g. rewards) in
studying, more school supplies, hiring private tutors, adequate nourishment etc.
As the preceding discussions on socioeconomic status of respondents
imply, both the HSSsbp and the LSSsbp seemed materially constrained in
acquiring opportunities enjoyed by other students with well-to-do families.
Although the effect of scarcity tend to lessen as family size also lessens,
Poverty, or more appropriately Socioeconomic Status, is a variable with implicit
effect on the performance of students. The fact established by table 6, especially
the idea that lower section students might have performed least because they
were poorer than the higher section students, confirms what the literature is
saying, that populations of poor students tend to be concentrated in the lower
sections (track), this observation tends to be consistent in public schools
practicing homogenous student-sectioning, as suggested by the review of related
literature.
Analyses on Table 6, 7, and 8 suggest that the variable Socioeconomic
Status (SES) might have affected how students perform at school and how they
were consequentially (but unintentionally) placed in higher or lower sections.
Contemplating on those tables, especially the researcher’s ocular visits on
areas surrounding the school caused him to consider culture of poverty as a
p. 102
factor affecting academic performance of students (including dependent
variables of this study).
Marvin Harris (2001, p.201) described it as a condition wherein poor
people accept their fate as poor, and are pessimistic about their future (i.e. they
believe that there is no chance for social mobility). Poor Filipinos value education
since they perceive it as a mean in improving their socioeconomic status.
However, the researcher could not set-aside this factor since many poor
educated Filipinos have failed to climb to more affluent socioeconomic positions
in the Philippine society. Poor families could also be pessimistic about their
future, especially when no fruits of labor are evident despite years of being
industrious. At the extreme, parents might say “wag ka nang mag-aral, wala
namang mangyayari sa buhay natin!” This could affect the interests, aspirations,
and motivations of students for academic achievement.
4. Academic profile
Table 10: Respondents’ Number of Schooling Years since Grade 1(P1G.1)

Number of Schooling Higher Section Students Lower Section Students
years
11years and above 4.44% 12.45%
10 years 94.44% 69.39%
9 years and below 1.11% 0
100% (90) (49)
Table 10 shows that majority (94.44% or 85 respondents) in the HSSsbp
were studying for about 10 years since grade one, 4.44% (4 respondents) spent
±11 years, while 1.11% (1 respondent) spent 9 years.
p. 103
LSSsbp has already spent 10 years of study, while 12.45% (6 respondents)
spent ±11 years.
The normal number of years senior students should spend in studying
since grade one is ten years. Exceeding on it implies repetition of (a) grade level
at some point while below it implies acceleration to an advance grade level.
Table 10 only shows that majority of this study’s sample population spent
10 years in studying since grade 1.
The table also has the intent of showing which of the subsample
populations tend to contain students who have repeated at least 1 grade level.
As shown in the table, majority (94.44%) of the respondents in HSSsbp spent
normal number of schooling (10) years until the conduct of this research, the
same can be seen in the LSSsbp (69.39%). The table also suggested that there
were more lower section students (12.45%) who spent 11 or more years in
studying since grade 1 than higher section students (4.44%).
Table 11: Distribution of Respondents on their 3rd Yr. Average (P1G.2)

Grade Range Higher Section Students Lower Section Students
95-99 0 0
90-94 1.30% 0
85-89 40.26% 0
80-84 58.44% 9.68%
75-79 0 90.32%
65-74 0 0
100% (77) (31)
No answer 13 18
Table 11 shows that 77 respondents in the HSSsbp answered item
P1G.2, majority (58.44% or 45 respondents) of them have third year general
p. 104
averages ranging from 80-84, 40.26% (31 respondents) have grades ranging
from 85-90, while 1.30% (1 respondent) has average within the 90-94 range. The
table above suggests a high degree of concentration of HSSsbp’s averages
(98.7%) within the range 80-89.
The table also shows that 31 respondents in the LSSsbp answered item
P1G.2, majority (90.32% or 28 respondents) of them have third year general
averages concentrated within the 75-79 range, while 9.68% (3 respondents)
have averages within the 80-84 range.
Table 11 only shows that HSSsbp’s averages were highly concentrated
with the 80-89 range. LSSsbp’s averages were highly concentrated within the 75-
79 range.
The table implies that respondents in the HSSsbp and LSSsbp were
homogenously sectioned. This also suggests that the school administrators have
used the students’ previous grades in deciding as to what sections students must
be placed.
Table 12: An inquiry if Respondents have Back Subjects (P1G.2.b)

Number of Back Higher Section Students Lower Section Students
Subjects
3 and above 0 0
2 0 0
1 0 12.24%
0 100.0% 87.76%
100% (90) (49)
Table 12 shows that 100% of the respondents in the HSSsbp do not have
any back subjects.
LSSsbp have no back subjects, while 12.24% (6 respondents) of them have 1.

p. 105
Table 12 only shows that majority of this study’s sample population do not
have any back subjects. This verified the statement given by Ms. Cunanan (4th
yr. level chair) in an interview when she said that they placed all students who
have back subjects at the lower sections.
Table 13: Number of years the respondents has been higher or lower
section students since first year (P1G.3)
Years Higher Section Students Lower Section Students
4 38.89% 18.37%
3 22.22% 18.37%
2 17.78% 22.45%
1 21.11% 40.82%
100% (90) (49)
spent their entire high school years (four years) being sectioned among the
school’s higher sections, 22.22% (20 respondents) spent three years at the
higher sections, 17.78% (16 respondents) spent two years, and 21.11% (19
respondents) spent a year.
LSSsbp seem to be neophytes at the lower sections, spending only a year (this
school year when this study was conducted) at the lower sections. Twenty two
point forty five percent (11 respondents) in the LSSsbp spent two years at the
lower sections, 18.37% (9 respondents) spent 3 years, and 18.37% (9
respondents) spent their entire high school life (4 years) at the lower sections.
Excluding the percentages of neophytes in the counting, and adding those
remaining would yield a significant information that 78.89% (38.89% + 22.22% +
17.78%) in the HSSsbp were higher section students for at least two years up to
p. 106
the present; and that 59.19% (18.37% + 18.37% + 22.45%) in the LSSsbp were
lower section students for at least two years up to the present.
It can therefore be concluded that majority of the respondents in the
HSSsbp and LSSsbp were not neophytes and have already obtained a
considerable number of years (2-4 years) belonging to the higher and lower
sections.
This qualified and enabled43 the respondents to react, give comments, and
evaluate their positions and experiences within the section-status they belong.
Neophytes (those who spent a year being higher/lower section student: 21.11%
in HSSsbp and 40.82% in LSSsbp) were also included in the analyses of data.
Years of being higher or lower section students were included in this research in
order for readers to feel some sense of reliability on opinionated and attitudinal
data that would be presented later.
Table 13 also has the intent of indirectly measuring the social mobility of
respondents within the section-statuses i.e. higher, middle/average, and lower
sections. As suggested by the table, joined percentages of higher section
student-respondents who gained 2-4 years (78.89%) suggest that respondents in
the HSSsbp became stock-up at the higher sections, meaning social mobility at
the higher sections is weak, in other words: once a student becomes a higher
section student, there is a big probability that he/she will remain to be higher
section student for two to four years. Low percentage of social mobility in higher
43
Due to their considerable number of years of stay at a section status (higher or lower section),
they could have already gained considerable number of experiences on labeling,
discrimination, etc.
p. 107
sections suggests that there are factors which make the percentage of retention
for those students to be high.
Table 13 also tells a somewhat similar story for LSSsbp, 59.19% of the
respondents in the LSSsbp reported that they have been lower section students
for two to four years. This suggests that social mobility in lower sections is also
weak; implying a high probability of retention at the lower sections once a student
is placed there.
The previous analyses suggest that percentage of retention in HSSsbp
(78.89%) is higher than LSSsbp (59.19%). This is because of the high
percentage of neophytes in the lower sections (40.82%). The latter suggests that
there are factors at the middle/average sections which cause them to become
lower section students the following year.
This analysis regarding the weakness of social mobility within the higher
and lower sections taps what Ballantine (1997, p.74) said that “once labeled and
grouped, there is less chance of their moving from one category to another.”
High retention rate therefore, makes two subpopulations (higher section
and lower section students) to become poles apart. This weak social mobility
condition on higher and lower sections becomes favorable for the existence (and
perpetuation) of social stratification among students (through their sections) since
each section status (track) would likely to have different subcultures (see
Ballantine on page 55). These are manifestations of C. H. Cooley’s second
theorem on conditions that favor stratification i.e. “a slow rate of social change”
(see theoretical construct).
p. 108
Table 14: Distribution of respondents regarding their participation in
school-wide activities since 1st yr. (P1G.4)
Activities Higher Section Students Lower Section Students
Has become contestants 21.11% 2.04%
in Academic contests,
especially in quiz bees.
Journalist/School paper 11.11% 0
contributor/ writer
Athlete 17.78% 20.41%
Drama guild 7.78% 8.16%
School dance troupe 8.89% 12.24%
member
Choir member 13.33% 6.12%
Shool Artist 3.33% 0
(i.e. painter etc.)
Has membership in 24.44% 2.04%
school organizations.
None 44.44% 65.31%
100% (90) (49)
This table was not percentaged down.
have not participated in any school-wide activities (specified in the table) since
first year, 24.44% (22 respondents) were involved/members in school-based
organizations, 21.11% (19 respondents) have became contestants in academic
contests, 17.78% (16 respondents) were athletes, 13.33% (12 respondents) were
choir members, 11.11% (10 respondents) were journalists/contributors in the
school paper, 8.89% (8 respondents) were dance troupe members, 7.78% (7
respondents) were drama guild members, and 3.33% (3 respondents) were
school artists i.e. painters.
LSSsbp were not involved in any of the school-wide activities indicated in the
table (questionnaire), 20.41% (10 respondents) were athletes, 12.24% (6
p. 109
respondents) were dance troupe members, 8.16% (4 respondents) were drama
guild members, 6.12% (3 respondents) were choir members, while only 2.04% (1
respondent) were involved in school organizations and in academic contests.
Table 14 only shows that majority of the student-respondents in both
subsample populations were not involved in any of the school-wide activities
indicated in the questionnaire.
Although majority of the student-respondents did not participate in any of
those school activities, analyzing percentages in different categories would yield
the following:
1. Higher section students (24.44%) tend to be more involved in school
organizations (membership) than lower section students (2.0%).
2. Higher Section students tend to have greater participation in academic
contests (21.11%) than Lower section students (2.04%).
3. Higher Section students (11.11%) tend to have greater participation in
journalism at school than Lower Section students (0% LSSsbp).
4. Lower Section students tend to have greater participation in sports
(20.41%) than Higher Section students (17.78%).
5. Lower Section students tend to have greater participation in drama
guild (8.16%) than Higher Section students (7.78%).
6. Lower Section students (12.24) tend to have greater participation
(membership) in the school’s dance troupe than Higher Section
students (8.89%).
p. 110
the school’s chorale than Lower Section students (6.12%).
school artistry (i.e. painting and other visual and plastic arts) than
Lower section students (0%).
The same table implies that Higher Section students tend to be more
academically supreme (being contestants in quiz bees, journalism, membership
in school organization) than Lower section students. The table also implies that
Lower Section students tend to be more supreme than higher section students
when it comes to non-academic, more bodily activities at school (sports/athlete,
drama guild, and dance troupe).
Analyses on Table 14 suggest that the variable section-status may have
influenced students on choosing which school-wide activities (academic or non-
academic) they would want to be engaged in.
Table 15: Awards received during the respondents’ stay at JCMPHS (P1G.5)
Awards received Higher Section Students Lower Section Students
An honor student 33.33% 6.12%
Has won academic 12.22% 2.04%
contests inside the school
Has won non-academic 4.44% 0
contests inside the school
Has won academic 4.44% 2.04%
contests outside the school
Has won non-academic 4.44% 8.16%
contests outside the school
None 57.78% 81.63%
100% (90) (49)
did not receive any awards stated at the table (questionnaire) during their stay at
p. 111
JCMPHS, 33.33% (30 respondents) became honor students, 12.22% (11
respondents) have won academic contests inside the school, and 4.44% (4
respondents) have won non-academic contests inside the school, academic
contests outside the school, and non-academic contests outside the school.
The table also shows that majority (81.63% or 40 respondents) in the
LSSsbp did not received any awards during their study at JCMPHS, 8.16% (4
respondents) have won non-academic contests outside the school (e.g. Sports),
6.12% (3 respondents) became honor students, and 2.04% (1 respondent) won
academic contest inside and outside the school.
Table 15 only shows that majority of the respondents in both
subpopulations have not received any awards during their stay at JCMPHS.
Table 15 implies the supremacy of higher section students (33.33%) over
lower section students (6.12%) on achievement (awards) in academic contests
inside the school (HSSsbp’s 12.22% than LSSsbp’s 2.04%), on non-academic
contests inside the school (HSSsbp’s 4.44% than LSSsbp’s 0%), and on
academic contests held outside the school (HSSsbp’s 4.44% than LSSsbp’s
2.04%). It is note taking, however, that LSSsbp’s (8.16%) dominance over
HSSsbp (4.44%) on non-academic contests held outside the school is the only
category where LSSsbp acquired dominance (this is probably because lower
section students tend to be more involved in more bodily activities than higher
section students i.e. athletics and dance troupe, see table 14). Also, more
respondents at the LSSsbp (81. 63%) do not have any awards or honors
received than the HSSsbp (57.78%).
p. 112
Analysis on Table 15 implies that higher section students have dominated
achievement acquisition inside and (almost) outside the school.
The difference between higher and lower section students on the nature
(i.e. academic and non-academic) of school-wide activities that they become
engaged in was explained by Brinkerhoff (et. al., 2002, p.318), saying that
“students who are assigned to high-ability groups receive strong affirmation of
their academic identity ... [while] students placed in low-ability tracks... may cut
their looses and look for self-esteem through other avenues such as athletics...”
Previous academic achievements (e.g. high grades, awards received)
could cause students to believe that they have high capacities to achieve more in
the future, thus, if these beliefs were sustained, it would likely to result to high
academic (achievement) gains. Contemplating on this, the researcher thinks that
previous academic achievements (PAA) could be good factors as to why some
students could be more aspiring and motivated for academic achievement than
others. Table 14 and 15 shows that higher section students tend to have more
(academic) awards received (and high participation in school-wide activities) than
lower section students, thus: higher section students tend to have higher PAAs.
Students with high PAA, when homogenously sectioned, would likely to compete
because they were faced to maintain their high PAAs (including high self-esteem
produced by such, etc.), this, the researcher thinks, accounts for the low social
mobility table 13 has suggested for higher section students.
Looking at the other side of the coin, students who knew that they were (in
a section with students who were) studying more than 10 years (table 10), that
p. 113
they have low grades (table 11), that they were (in a section with students who
were) repeaters of at least 1 subject (table 12), would, the researcher think, not
likely to aspire and be motivated for academic achievement (this could account
for table 14 wherein LSSsbp tend to be more involved in sports, and table 15
wherein LSSsbp tend to be largely dominated by HSSsbp on awards received).
The researcher thinks that these factors are contributory as to why, lower section
students tend to have weak social mobility within the lower sections as shown by
table 13. Page in 1991 (as cited in Slavin 2003, p. 298-300) offered an insightful
idea on this: “concentrating low-achieving students in low-track classes seems to
be harmful because it exposes them to few positive roles.”
5. Other Intervening variables (factors)
Previous intervening variables discussed (respondents’ description) only
reminds the reader that the independent variables of this study (labels,
expectations, attributions, and the section-status) are not the only variables
which would likely to have effect on this study’s dependent variables. The
previous discussions only show that materialized conditions ([previous grades,
SES etc.) are (somewhat) real (existing) and are possible effectors on the self-
concepts, aspiration and motivation for academic achievement, and social
interactions (dependent variables) of higher section and lower section students.
The following are other intervening variables mostly “out of scope” (existing only
in citations) of this study which, the researcher thinks, have possible effects on
the dependent variables. The recognition of these variables was contemplated
during data gathering.
p. 114
1. Personality and personal dispositions –every person is unique (since
they were socialized in different social contexts within the same
society) and could have their own sense of values, goals, aspirations,
and motivations, similarly, every person has their own sets of
dispositions which could be independent (or slightly dependent) from
those (i.e. labels, expectations, attributes) conveyed by their social
environment (especially in the case of primary deviants).
2. Subculture of friends (barkada) –if friends don’t value academic
achievement, it implicitly follows that members of the group (friends)
would also tend not to value academic achievement. Subculture of
barkadas could also affect how students relate to other students (and
to other people) who belong to the out-group, e.g. barkadas might
warn a member “wag kang dumikit dyan, mga matatalino yan.”
Similarly, it is in the subculture of friends which the researcher have
accounted for the “support” members received primarily due to
camaraderie, somewhat independent from the labels tagged to
individual members.
3. Teaching strategies of teachers –the researcher thinks that different
strategies of teaching would yield different gains in student
performances. Also, the researcher thinks that differences on the
volume of work loads teachers give to students should also be
recognized as a variable since these could affect the time students
p. 115
would spend in being involved in academic activities (e.g. doing
assignments or research projects instead of playing or by standing).
B. The Sectioning Methodology Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma

High School has
Informal, unstructured interviews with the Principal and the 4th year level
chairman on December 17, 2008 and January 5, 2009 revealed that students at
JCMPHS were homogenously sectioned based on their previous year general
averages (they called it performance based). The administrators said that they
chose Homogenous student-sectioning in order for teachers to teach students
based on their ability to learn and to comprehend lessons. The effort to teach
students based on their perceived ability was in response to the low performance
of JCMPHS in the previous National Achievement Test. The principal said that
the school ranked as one of the lowest performing public secondary school in
Quezon City. Through teaching students based on their ability (Between-Class
Ability Grouping, or Homogenous Student Sectioning), the school administrators
believe that they could (improve learning) raise the academic performance of
their students (school).
The school principal said that senior students at the higher sections knew
that they were homogenously sectioned and that they belong to the higher
sections, this was, according to her, because of the academic contests that
higher section students tend to join. She continued that students at the lower
sections neither knew how they were sectioned nor the fact that they belong to
the lower sections.
p. 116
The data presented in Table 16 supports what the principal said.
Table 16: The respondents’ perception as to how they were sectioned (P2B)
Sectioning Higher Section Students Lower Section Students
Methodology
Homogenous 81.11% 22.45%
Heterogeneous 13.33% 32.65%
Do not know 5.56% 44.90%
100% (90) (49)
knew and aware that they were sectioned homogenously, 13.33% (12
respondents) thought that they were sectioned heterogeneously and 5.56% (5
respondents) do not the answer.
Data in table 16 also confirms that Lower section students do not know
how they were sectioned. As shown in the table, majority (44.90% or 22
respondents) in the LSSsbp do not know how they were sectioned, 32.65% (16
respondents) thought that they were heterogeneously sectioned, and only
22.45% (11 respondents) were aware that they were homogenously sectioned.
Homogenous student-sectioning at JCMPHS involves the evaluation of
former 3rd year general averages (performance based) in sectioning students.
Since the data in table 16 showed that higher section students were aware that
they were homogenously sectioned, then it basically follows that they knew that
their previous grades were the bases of school administrators in sectioning them.
Since lower section students do not know how they were sectioned, they should
have no knowledge on the basi(e)s used by administrators in assigning them to
their present sections. However, the data below contradicts this.
p. 117
Table 17: The respondents’ perception on the basi(e)s of being assigned to
their respective sections (P2B.2)
Perceived bases Higher Section Lower Section
Students Students
Based on my grades 85.56% 81.63%
My section does not 7.77% 2.04%
change
Early/Late in enrolment 1.11% 4.08%
Sectioned Alphabetically 1.11% 12.24%
School representative on 2.22% 4.08%
contests
I am a transferee 5.56% 6.12%
Because of my conditions 10% 34.69%
in life
I do not know 3.33% 10.20%
100% (90) (49)
Data in Table 17 confirms the claim for higher section students. As shown
in the table, majority (85.56% or 77 respondents) in the HSSsbp believed that
their previous grades were the bases in student-sectioning; 10% (9 respondents)
believed that they were at their present sections because (1) they were poor-
2.22%, (2) their families were influential-2.22%, and (3) their families were not
influential at school-2.22%. The table also shows that 7.77% (7 respondents)
said that their section does not change, meaning, that they were at the same
section for about two or more years (these were the students who believed that
they were repeatedly grouped to the same section regardless of their grades);
5.56% (5 respondents) believed that they were at the higher sections because
they were transferees; 2.22% (2 respondents) believed that they were at the
higher sections because they represent the school during contests (again
regardless of grades); 1.11% (1 respondent) believed that he/she was at his/her
present section because he/she enrolled early/late; and 1.11% (1 respondent)
p. 118
believed that he/she was at his/her present section because of his/her surname
(alphabetical).
Contrary to the claim for lower section students, majority (81.63% or 40
respondents) in the LSSsbp believed that they were sectioned based on their
grades; 34.69% (17 respondents) believed that they were at their present
sections because (1) they were poor-26.53%, (2) their families were influential-
6.12%, and (3) their families were not influential at schoo-2.04%; 12.24% (6
respondents) believed that they were sectioned alphabetically; Others believed
that they were at their present sections because they were transferees (6.12% or
3 respondents), that they enrolled early/late (4.08% or 2 respondents) and that
they represent the school during contests (again regardless of grades, 4.08% or
2 respondents); only 2.04% (1 respondent) believed) that his/her section does
not change.
The researcher thinks that the ambiguity caused by the two percentages
obtained from the LSSsbp in tables 16 (22.45% answered for Homogenous) and
17 (81.63% answered that sectioning was based on their grades) is due to the
fact that, based on the principal’s statement, lower section students do not know
that they were homogenously sectioned per se. This implies that LSSsbp do not
know the definition of Homogenous student-sectioning (although an in-text
definition in the questionnaire briefly described it).The researcher thinks that this
no-knowledge of lower section students to the notion of homogenous student
sectioning should be attributed to its non-usage in the every day language used
inside the classrooms and at school. Only school administrators and teachers
p. 119
were exposed to the principles of student-sectioning since they are part of their
formal training at normal schools.
Table 18: Respondent’s perception on how they were sectioned in

elementary (P2B.3)
Sectioning Higher Section Students Lower Section Students
Methodology
Homogenous 63.33% 24.49%
Heterogeneous 22.22% 22.45%
Do not know 14.44% 53.06%
100% (90) (49)
Table 18 shows that majority (63.33% or 57respondents) in the HSSsbp
believed that they were homogenously sectioned in elementary, 22.22% (20
respondents) believed that they were sectioned heterogeneously, while 14.44%
(13 respondents) do not know the answer.
Contrary to the higher section students, majority (53.06% or 26
respondents) in the LSSsbp do not know how they were sectioned in elementary,
24.49% (12 respondents) believed that they were homogenously sectioned in
elementary, while 22.45% (11 respondents) believed that they were sectioned
heterogeneously in elementary.
The researcher recognized the limitation of human memory. This could
account for the percentages of respondents who do not know the answer. Also,
the researcher realized that elementary students are too young to be conscious
on student-sectioning issues.
The table has an implicit purpose of giving the reader an idea as to when
students might have (first) experienced being labeled (expected, attributed) with
words stated in tables 19 and 20 (to be presented next). The theoretical construct
has claimed that labels, expectations, and attributions are more evident and
p. 120
experienced if students were sectioned homogenously. Contemplating on this
implies that students with long[er] experience of being sectioned homogenously
(being higher or lower section students) have long[er] experiences of being
labeled, expected, and attributed with words stated in tables 19 and 20. Further,
the researcher contends that such students are more likely to internalize those
labels and become secondary deviants.
p. 121
C. Labels, Expectations, and Attributions associated with the
Student-Respondents
Table 19: Expectations for Higher Section Students (P2C.1)
Higher Section Students Lower Section Students
Expectations % in HSSs’ Mw % in LSSs’ Mw
HSS attitude on Verbal LSS attitude on Verbal
sbp expectation Interpretation sbp expectation Interpretation
(Mw) (Mw)
Brilliant 91.11 4.11 Agree 62.5 3.81 Agree
students (high
IQ)
Role model 83.33 4.01 Agree 50 2.70 Undecided
students
Fast learner 78.89 4.10 Agree 50 3.0 Undecided
students
(advance in
lessons)
Students 77.78 4.24 Agree 65 3.12 Undecided
active in
academic
activities
Student 67.78 4.11 Agree 55 3.09 Undecided
leaders
Popular 57.78 3.6 Agree 45 3.06 Undecided
students
School’s 76.67 4.23 Agree 60 3.0 Undecided
representative
on contests
Students 63.33 3.65 Agree 47.5 2.89 Undecided
prioritized by
the school
Disciplined 83.33 4.21 Agree 77.5 3.39 Undecided
students
Responsible 82.22 4.28 Agree 60 3.25 Undecided
students
Grade- 77.78 4.71 Strongly 57.5 3.30 Undecided
conscious Agree
students
Students 65.56 3.86 Agree 60 3.90 Agree
proficient in
speaking and
writing
Rich students 43.33 1.77 Disagree 50 2.70 Undecided
Others 15.56 3.93 Agree 27.5 3.30 Undecided
100% (90) (40)
No answer 0 respondents 9 respondents
p. 122
Questionnaire items P2C.1 and P2C.2 have two intentions, first is to know
how many respondents in both subpopulations believe that the words enlisted on
those items were the characteristics of students who are (or are most likely to be)
at the higher sections. The respondents were also asked to check those
categories other people used (said) when describing (expecting) higher and
lower section students. These percentages were presented at the left-most
column in each subsample population column. The second intention is to know
the attitude of the respondents to those expectations (attributions, descriptive
words). The latter would be contributory in determining subjective academic self-
concepts and describing the type of deviancy higher and lower section students
tend to be (have) when considering these expectations.
believed that higher section students are (expected to be) brilliant, intelligent
students (matatalino, mataas ang IQ), this was further strengthened by their
attitude of 4.11 (agree); 83.33% (75 respondents) believed (heard) that higher
section students are role model students and are disciplined students, this was
strengthened by their attitude rating of 4.01 (agree) and 4.28 (agree) on those
categories; 78.89% (71 respondents) believed (heard) that higher section
students are fast learners, this was strengthened by their 4.10 (agree) attitude
rate on the category; 77.78% ( 70 respondents) believed (heard) that higher
section students are active in academic activities and were also grade conscious,
these categories were further given 4.24 (agree) and 4.71 (strongly agree)
attitude rates by the HSSsbp respondents; 67.78% (61 respondents) believed
p. 123
(heard) that higher section students are student leaders (with attitude rating of
4.11: agree); 65.56% (59 respondents) believed (heard) that higher section
students are proficient in speaking and in writing (with attitude rating of 3.68:
agree); 57.78% (52 respondents) believed (heard) that higher section students
are popular students (3.6: agree); 43.33% (39 respondents) heard that higher
section students are rich, but they tend to disagree on it (with attitude rate of
1.77, this confirms the data in table 6); further, 15.56% (14 respondents) believed
(heard) that higher section students also have the following characteristics:
boastful, industrious, are always present in their classes, and are close to
teachers, they have collectively given all these a 3.93 (agree) attitude rate.
P2C.1, majority (77.5% or 31 respondents) of them heard that higher section
students are disciplined students, however, they gave no position on the matter
(3.39: undecided); the rest of the categories were all given by the LSSsbp
respondents the same attitude rates (values falling within the range 2.51-3.50,
indicating the undecided state of the respondents), these are the following: 65%
(26 respondents) heard that higher section students are active in academic
activities; 60% (24 respondents) heard that higher section students are
responsible students, and are the school’s representatives in contests outside
the school; 57.5% (23 respondents) heard that higher section students are grade
conscious; 55% (22 respondents) heard that higher section students are student
leaders; 50% (20 respondents) heard that higher section students are role model
students, fast learner students, and rich students (although data in table 6
p. 124
debunks this belief) ; 47.5% (19 respondents) heard that higher section students
are prioritized by the school; 45% (18 respondents) heard that higher section
students are popular students; and 27.5% (11 respondents) heard that higher
section students have also the following characteristics: obedient, kind, and
industrious. However, of the LSSsbp, 62.5% (27 respondents) believed (heard)
that higher section students are brilliant students (3.8: agree); and 60% (24
respondents) believed (heard) that higher section students are proficient in
speaking and writing (3.90: agree).
Consistency of attitude rates at the table is evident, showing that higher
section students mostly agree with the words that were being attributed
(expected) to them (except for the adjective rich). It seems that higher section
students find reality on the meanings implied on those words. Since these
expectations (attributions) are mostly likely to be verbalized by the people around
the higher section students, they become labels (see theoretical construct).
Evident is the fact that they agree and accept those labels (as well as the roles
suggested by it), implying that they are secondary deviants.
Majority of the LSSsbp respondents were likely to be undecided on those
words (expectations) attributed to higher section students. This could be due to
their non-frequent contact with each other (C. H. Cooley theorem no. 1 i.e. “little
communication”). One could also imply that lower section students might have
also some reservations on reacting to those words attributed to higher section
students (e.g. they might be envious, or they might be doubtful on the certainty of
those expectations etc.)
p. 125
The table also affirms the most prestigious position (social class) higher
section students have in the hierarchy of students at JCMPHS.
Converging previous analyses imply that students are likely to be
associated with positive and high expecting words when they are placed in the
higher sections. Supporting this claim are the high percentages of LSSsbp who
heard that other people (including themselves in some cases) used such words
in describing students (that are likely to be placed) at the higher sections.
Table 20: Expectations for Lower Section Students (P2C.2)

Expectations % in Attitude on Mw % in Attitude on Mw
HSS expectation Verbal LSS expectation Verbal
sbp (Mw) Interpretation sbp (Mw) Interpretation
Slow 65.85 3.20 Undecided 56.82 3.04 Undecided
learners
Easy-go- 78.05 4.01 Agree 75 3.90 Agree
lucky
students
(lazy)
No 68.29 3.71 Agree 50 2.77 Undecided
eagerness in
learning/No
interest in
studying
Bully 78.05 4.09 Agree 86.36 3.26 Undecided
students
(magugulo,
pasaway,
makukulit)
Irresponsible 69.51 3.63 Agree 65.91 2.44 Disagree
students
who
frequently
cut their
classes
with back
subjects
Students 71.95 3.93 Agree 79.55 3.77 Agree
with hidden
talents and
p. 126
skills; shy
Members of 67.07 3.91 Agree 59.09 2.88 Undecided
gangs
Poor 50 2.17 Disagree 61.36 3.18 Undecided
students
Students 54.88 2.94 Undecided 65.91 2.83 Undecided
with low IQ
Barkadista 68.29 3.88 Agree 68.18 3.00 Undecided
Others 10.98 3.56 Agree 29.55 2.77 Undecided
100% (82) (44)
No answer: 8 respondents 5 respondents
Table was not percentaged down
Table 20 shows that 82 respondents in the HSSsbp answered item P2C.2,
majority (78.05% or 64 respondents) of them believed (heard) that lower section
students are easy go lucky students (lazy) (4.01: agree) and are bully (magugulo,
pasaway, and makukulit (4.09: agree); 76.83% (63 respondents) believed (heard)
that lower section students have back subjects (4.13: agree); 71.95% (59
respondents) believed (heard) that lower section students have hidden talents
and are only shy (3.93: agree); 70.73% (58 respondents) believed (heard) that
lower section students are frequently cutting their classes (3.98: agree); 69.51%
(57 respondents) believed (heard) that lower section students are irresponsible
students (3.63: agree); 68.29% (56 respondents) believed (heard) that lower
section students are not eager to learn (3.71: agree) and are barkadistas (3.88:
agree); 67.07% (55 respondents) believed (heard) that lower section students
are members of gangs (3.91: agree); further, 10.98% (9 respondents) believed
(heard) that lower section student also have the following characteristics:
students who are not doing their assignments, students who do not know how to
respect others, are boastful, and are truant students, they have collectively given
all these a 3.56 (agree) attitude rate. On the other hand, 65.85% (54
p. 127
respondents) heard that lower section students were described as slow learners;
and 54.88% (45 respondents) heard that lower section students have low IQs.
Higher section students were uncertain on those two previous matters (3.20 and
2.94: undecided). Fifty percent (41 respondents) in the HSSsbp disagree that
lower section students are poor (2.17: disagree), this particular belief contradicts
the data in table 6.
P2C.2, majority (86.36% or 38 respondents) of them heard that lower section
students are bully, however, they tend to show their uncertainty on this belief
(3.26: undecided). The respondents’ state of uncertainty (attitude values ranging
from 2.51-3.50) is also evident on the following categories: 68.18% (30
respondents) heard that lower section students have back subjects (this
condition of uncertainty confirms the data in table 11, showing that not all
LSSsbp respondents have back subjects), and lower section students are
barkadistas; 65.91% (29 respondents) heard that lower section students
frequently cut their classes, and are students who have low IQs; 61.36% (27
respondents) heard that lower section students are poor; 59.09% (26
respondents) heard that lower section students are members of gangs; 56.82%
(25 respondents) heard that lower section students are slow learners; 50% (22
respondents) heard that lower section students are not eager to learn; further,
29.55% (13 respondents) heard that lower section students also have the
following characteristics: students who are fun to be with, are true people (hindi
plastic), and are not studying hard, they have collectively given all these a 2.77
p. 128
attitude rate. LSSsbp respondents (65.91% or 29 respondents) disagree (2.44)
that lower section students are irresponsible students. Contrary to this, high
percentage of respondents (75% or 33 respondents) agreed that lower section
students are easy go lucky students (3.90: agree); they also believed (79.55% or
35 respondents) that lower section students have hidden talents and skills and
are only shy (3.77: agree).
Table 20 shows that LSSsbp tend to be uncertain regarding the
characteristics of lower section students. It seems that those expectations
(attributions) were heard by LSSsbp from other people, but that these
respondents could not determine their veracity due to conflicting values (e.g. a
combination of feelings that these expectations are somewhat true and
somewhat false [“half truths”], minding the phrase “it depends”) or that they don’t
have just concrete knowledge on those characteristics attributed to lower section
students, including themselves (one could also assert that they were not
neophytes and therefore, could have observed the behavior of their fellow lower
section students during their previous years of study, however, this idea could be
weaken by arguing that these students, provided that they have spent
considerable years at the lower sections, have normalize, have treated these
traits as trivial, and could have taken for granted behaviors complained of against
them, lower section students). One could also imply that these students were
only protecting their reputations since categories in the item (table) imply
negative images/meanings (however, one could also argue that if they want to
protect their reputations, they could have just answered “strongly disagree”
p. 129
instead). Undecided attitudes in table 20 somewhat suggest that those
expectations exist, but were only being tolerated (taken for granted) by lower
section students. The latter idea would consequentially place LSSsbp in the
primary deviant type.
What is interesting in table 20 is the somewhat consistent pattern of
HSSsbp’s agreeing to expectations and characteristics attributed to lower section
students. HSSsbp’s attitude to those expectations imply that these expectations
exists, and that these expectations are (most likely) being tagged (expected) to
lower section students by other people not in continuous and persistent contact
with them (i.e. HSSsbp). The pattern implies that these expectations are cultural
constructions (e.g. ethnocentrism), it is shared, and is conveyed through
language: if it is not cultural, then higher section students shouldn’t have known
such expectations and attributions for lower section students (one could argue
that such expectations were just brought into the consciousness of HSSsbp
respondents because they were written in the questionnaire, this could be partly
true, but the researcher contends that if these expectations do no exist, then they
could have just leave that particular questionnaire item blank [“no answer”]). The
table also explicitly shows that higher section students have low and negative
expectations for lower section students.
Since labels, expectations, and attributions are indicators of prestige (see
theoretical construct), then it follows that lower section students, who are most
likely to be associated with low and negative expectations, occupy the least
prestigious social class (positions) in the studentry.
p. 130
Extending these ideas imply that students are likely to be associated with
negative and low expecting words when they are placed in the lower sections.
D. Type of Deviancy by the Student-Respondents

Table 21: Student-respondents’ attitude regarding the sections they belong
(P2D)
Attitude Verbal Attitude Verbal
(Mw) Description (Mw) Description
3.98 Accepted 4.14 Accepted
N 88 respondents 42 respondents
Table 21 shows that 88 respondents in the HSSsbp answered item P2D, it
also shows that higher section students tend to accept the section they presently
belong. Other respondents rationalized their positions by saying that they
deserved to be higher section students because of their high grades and the
achievements that they received; others said that they were privileged to be at
the higher sections since their teachers were likely to give more focus to them
than the other students; others felt that as higher section students, they were
more challenged to exert their best in gaining academic rewards; others were
happy that, as higher section students, they were giving honor and pride to their
parents. Despite these benefits, other HSSsbp respondents felt that they were
more pressured to study hard than the average and lower section students;
others felt that their tight schedules were hard to cope with; some felt that they
were not enjoying their ambience of competition for academic rewards; others felt
that they were not disserving to be at the higher sections. The researcher thinks
p. 131
that these negative feelings were brought about by high expectations of teachers,
other students, parents etc. to higher section students, and that the former were
finding those expectations hard to actualize and to cope with. The researcher
also thinks that ambience of competition (see p. 113) tend to aggravate these
feelings of discontentment.
P2D, it further shows that lower section students tend to accept the section they
presently belong, despite the negative and low expecting words that were
associated with lower section students. Many of them gave reasons which seem
fatalistic, saying that they should accept what was given (assigned) to them since
they were not in the position to decide on the matter; that they were already in
their present sections and that they could have nothing to do about it; others
were saying that it is at the lower sections where they justly belong (they
recognized that their grades were low and that their capacity [performance] only
allowed them for such); others were saying that they were being downed by their
teachers and other students and that they could not deny it since they were lower
section students. Despite the sense of hopelessness (fatalism) felt by many
lower section students, others find it challenging, and the labeling, irrational: as
with a respondent who said that it was not on sectioning which determines how
intelligent students are, to him, what is important is that students are learning,
regardless as to what sections they belong. Other respondents value the
camaraderie that they have with their fellow lower section students (does it imply
that lower section students are barkadistas? HSSsbp tend to agree to such, see
p. 132
table 20, the principal also said the same in an interview). The latter statement
caused the researcher to think that maybe camaraderie (barkadahan) is strong
among the lower section students because they most likely perceived
themselves to be equals, not rivals (as what higher section students feel because
of the ambience of competition at the higher sections).
Table 21 only shows that higher and lower section students tend to accept
the section they presently belong.
Table 22: The student-respondents’ main label as a consequence of being

at their present sections (P2D.2)
Labels % in Frequency Mw % in Frequency Mw
HSS of labeling Verbal LSS of labeling Verbal
Higher 84.44 3.70 Always 2.50 2.00 Sometimes
Section
Student
Average/ 8.89 3.22 Moderate 7.50 3.00 Moderate
Middle
Section
Student
Lower 1.11 3.00 Moderate 77.50 2.97 Moderate
Section
Student
Has not 5.56 --- --- 12.5 --- ---
experienced
being
labeled by
these
100% (90) (40)
Questionnaire item P2D.2 has the intention of verifying whether students
at the higher sections were being called (labeled) as higher section students and
whether students at the lower sections were being called (labeled) as lower
section students. As indicated in the theoretical construct, the phrase “higher
section students” and “lower section students” were considered as main labels
p. 133
for students who are at the higher and lower sections. One could argue that the
item shouldn’t have to be included since students at the higher/lower sections will
be automatically called higher/lower section students, the researcher, however,
argues that one could be too deterministic in doing so, thus excluding
possibilities of variations in labeling (due to human error etc.), he further
contends that that would be the case if all the students know the status of their
section (as well as the statuses of other sections, i.e. what sections belong to the
higher, average, or lower sections). The inquiry (P2D.2) also implicitly tests what
the principal said about the lower section students during an interview: that lower
section students were not aware that they were actually lower section students.
The researcher thinks that an effort was made by the school administration to
avoid poor performing sections from being tagged as lower sections (they could
have preconceived that the term lower section implies negative connotations).
One explicit evidence is that the names (world leaders) of senior sections were
non indicative to their statuses (see appendix C, names of sections were not
alphabetical in order). Also, the placing of rooms were non-indicative to the
section-statuses (section Antoninus, a lower section, has a room neighboring
higher sections Napoleon and Alexander at the fourth floor, SB building; On the
other hand, section Constantine, a higher section, has a room neighboring lower
sections Hadrian and Gandhi at the third floor, SB building ). Having these in
mind, the researcher contends that analysis in item P2D.2 would be valuable for
this research.
p. 134
were always (3.70) being called as higher section students, 8.89% (8
respondents) were moderately (3.22) being called as average section students,
and 1.11% (1 respondent) was moderately (3.0) being called as lower section
students. Five respondents (5.56%) haven’t experienced being labeled with
those enlisted in the table.
P2D.2, majority (77.50% or 31 respondents) of them were moderately (2.97)
being called as lower section students, 7.50% (3 respondents) were moderately
(3.0) being called as average section students, and 2.50% (1 respondent) were
sometimes (2.0) being called as higher section students. Five respondents
(12.5%) haven’t experienced being labeled with any of those enlisted in the table.
The researcher thinks that straying percentages of 8.89%, 1.11%, and
5.56% in the HSSsbp and 2.5%, 7.50%, and 12.5% in the LSSsbp were results
of ambiguity caused by the unusual ordering of senior sections (e.g. some higher
section students might have been labeled as average or lower section students
because their section is far from the other higher sections, just as in the case of
section Constantine, on the other hand, some lower section students might have
been labeled as average or higher section students because their section is near
from the higher sections, just as in the case of section Antoninus).
The data has also affirmed the researcher’s conjecture that the phrases
“higher section student” and “lower section student” are labels. If they are not
labels, then all respondents in the HSSsbp and LSSsbp would not experience
p. 135
being called as either higher or lower section student. If these phrases are not
labels, then straying percentages discussed in the previous paragraph should not
have existed.
The data affirmed the principal’s claim that higher section students knew
that they were higher section students. This was partly due to people who
frequently (3.70, always) tagged them as higher section students. The data in
LSSsbp column, however, debunk the claim that lower section students were not
aware that they were actually lower section students. The researcher does not
imply that the principal was lying. Instead, the researcher thinks that the outcome
became different from what was expected because there are other factors (i.e.
labelers) which made lower section students conscious that they were actually
lower section students, the action of the labelers for such was moderate (2.97).
The labelers were brought into the specifics on the next table.
p. 136
Table 23: An inquiry as to who labels the student-respondents (P2D.3)
Groups of % in Frequency Mw % in Frequency Mw
people HSS of labeling Verbal LSS of labeling Verbal
Peers 88.37 3.43 Moderate 42.86 3.11 Moderate
Classmates 65.12 3.32 Moderate 59.52 3.40 Moderate
Higher Section 43.02 3.16 Moderate 52.38 2.50 Sometimes
Students
Lower Section 66.28 3.63 Always 45.24 3.68 Always
Students
Parents 61.63 3.25 Moderate 47.62 3.10 Moderate
Respondents’ 67.44 3.40 Moderate 69.05 3.07 Moderate
teachers
Other 53.49 3.07 Moderate 57.14 2.71 Moderate
teachers
Guard/ 27.91 2.33 Sometimes 33.33 2.14 Sometimes
Janitors
School 26.74 2.35 Sometimes 33.33 2.50 Sometimes
administration
Others 11.63 3.60 Always 28.07 2.42 Sometimes
100% (86) (42)
This table was not percentaged down
Table 23 shows that 86 respondents in the HSSsbp answered item P2D.3,
majority (88.37% or 76 respondents) of them identified their peers as moderately
(3.43) involved in labeling them as higher section students, 67.44% (58
respondents) identified their teachers as moderately (3.40) involved in the
process of labeling, 66.28% (57 respondents) identified the lower section
students as always (3.63) involved in labeling them as higher section students,
65.12% (56 respondents) identified their classmates as moderately (3.32)
involved in labeling themselves with such, 53.49% (46 respondents) said that
other teachers were also moderately (3.07) involved in the labeling process,
43.02% (37 respondents) said that other higher section students were also
moderately (3.16) involved in making them conscious (through labeling) that the
p. 137
respondents were really higher section students, 27.91% (24 respondents) said
that even the guards and janitors were sometimes (2.33) involved in the labeling
phenomena, 26.74% (23 respondents) said that sometimes (2.35) the school
administration were also labeling them with such, 11.63% (10 respondents) have
identified other people (past classmates, students from other schools who are
also higher section students, brothers and sisters, uncles and unties, grandfather
and grand mothers) as always (3.60) involved in labeling (identifying) them as
higher section students.
P2D.3, majority (69.07% or 29 respondents) of them identified their teachers as
moderately (3.07) labeling them as lower section students, 59.52% (25
respondents) said that their classmates were also labeling them with such
(although moderately, 3.40), 57.14% (24 respondents) said that other teachers
were also moderately (2.71) labeling them as lower section students, 52.38% (22
respondents) identified higher section students as sometimes (2.50) involved in
labeling them, 47.65% (20 respondents) recognized their parents as moderately
(3.10) involved in tagging them as lower section students, 45.24% (19
respondents) identified other lower section students as always (3.68) involved in
labeling themselves, 33.33% (14 respondents) said that guards, janitors, and the
school administration were sometimes (2.14 & 2.50) labeling them with such,
while 28.07% (12 respondents) identified other people (unfortunately,
respondents did not mention these people) as sometimes (2.42) involved in
labeling them as lower section students.
p. 138
Table 23 shows that there were many people who were involved in
labeling students as higher or lower section students. These labelers, in the
process of labeling or tagging, were making the respondents (students)
conscious about their condition. This consciousness somehow affects the role
organization (set of roles) students have within themselves. Labeling causes
them to reconsider the roles suggested by the label being tagged to them.
Table 23 also shows that majority of those people involved in the labeling
process were only moderately engaged in the activity. However, the researcher
argues that these people were dispersed in the school setting, meaning, although
that they were moderately involved in the process, the fact that they were
dispersed (with is naturally occurring) increases the chances that students would
be tagged with the same label in different situations (in association with different
people) within the school setting. The latter argument caused the researcher to
think that the phenomenon of labeling among higher and lower section students
is sustained within the school setting.
The table also shows that within each section-status (higher and lower
section students) students were capable of labeling and making themselves
conscious that they were higher or lower section students (see row 3 and 4).
p. 139
Table 24: An inquiry as to how higher section students were labeled by the
groups of people that they identified in item P2D.3 (P2D.4.a)
Higher Section Students
Some Labels % in HSSsbp Frequency of labeling Verbal
(Mw) Interpretation
Star sections 66.28 3.58 Always
Cream of the crop 47.67 3.44 Moderate
Superior students 36.05 3.26 Moderate
Role model 73.26 3.83 Always
School’s Alas 43.02 3.70 Always
Brilliant students 70.93 3.48 Moderate
Chosen students 63.95 3.73 Always
Student leaders 53.49 3.63 Always
Others 4.65 4.5 Always
100% (86)
No answer 4 respondents
P2D.4.a, majority (73.26% or 63 respondents) of them said that as higher section
students, they were always (3.83) being tagged by the labelers as role model
students, 70.93% (61 respondents) said that they were moderately (3.48) being
called as brilliant students, 66.28% (57 respondents) said that they were always
(3.58) being called as star section students, 63.95% (55 respondents) said that
they were always (3.73) being called as the chosen students, 53.49% (46
respondents) said that they were always (3.63) being called as student leaders,
47.67% (41 respondents) said that they were moderately (3.44) being called as
the cream of the crop, 43.02% (37 respondents) said that they were always
(3.70) called as the school’s alas (pambatoˆ ng school), 36.05% (31 respondents)
said that they were moderately (3.26) being called as superior students, while
others (4.65% or 4 respondents) said that they were always (4.5) being called as
“perfectionist” and “the normal students among others.”
p. 140
Table 24 showed how frequent higher section students were being tagged
with high expecting words and phrases. These, again, imply the prestigious
position higher section students occupy in the student hierarchy. The position
(status i.e. higher section per se) is prestigious because it accompanies honor
(as implied in the meaning of labels) to its bearer, as well as sets of
responsibilities one must carry on to maintain his position (of dominance).
These labels carry with them sets of expected behavior: they somehow
dictate (remind) how one should conduct himself on a specific setting, they
suggest how one should relate with other people; they also accompany
meanings about one’s personality. All these affect (confirm, reject, or revise) the
role organization and self-concepts individuals have within themselves. The latter
statement implies that since self-concepts were affected, future actions would
also be affected (would be determined by the self-concepts, see Mead in the
theoretical framework).
p. 141
Table 25: An inquiry as to how lower section students were labeled by the
groups of people that they identified in item P2D.3 (P2D.4.b)
Lower Section Students
Some Labels % in LSSsbp Frequency of labeling Verbal
(Mw) Interpretation
Subordinates 38.71 2.58 Moderate
Slow learners 51.61 2.94 Moderate
Bully/magugulo 58.06 3.28 Moderate
Lazy students 67.74 3.05 Moderate
Need to pattern 67.74 3.57 Always
behavior with that
of the higher
section students
bobo 48.39 2.87 Moderate
Irresponsible 64.52 3.00 Moderate
Others 19.35 2.67 Moderate
100% (31)
No answer 18 respondents
Table 25 shows that 31 respondents in the LSSsbp answered item
P2D.4.b, majority (67.74% or 21 respondents) of them said that they were always
(3.57) being “reminded” by the labelers (especially their teachers) that they
should pattern their behavior with that of the higher section students and that
they were moderately (3.05) being called as lazy students (mga tamad), 64.52%
(20 respondents) said that they were moderately (3.00) being tagged by the
labelers as irresponsible students, 58.06% (18 respondents) said that they were
moderately (3.28) being called as bully students (magugulo), 51.61% (16
respondents) said that they were moderately (2.94) being called as slow
learners, 48.39% (15 respondents) said that they were moderately (2.84) being
called by the labelers as bobo, 38.71% (12 respondents) said that they were
moderately (2.58) being called as subordinates, and 19.35% (6 respondents)
p. 142
said that they were also being tagged with other labels (unfortunately, they did
not mention those other labels).
The words stated in table 25 and item D.4.b are low expecting words and
phrases. They somehow imply the subordinate and non-prestigious status lower
section students occupy in the student hierarchy. As stated in the analysis in
Table 24, these labels suggest roles, patterns of behavior,
Again one could argue that lower section students seem to occupy such
non-prestigious position in the hierarchy because of the words indicated in the
questionnaire itself. Aside from the fact that these words were derived from
several pretesting before the administration of the recent questionnaire, the
researcher contends that lower section student-respondents only affirmed that
those labels are existing, if they are not, then categories (words) should have
obtained values of 0-1.50 (from never to rare).
Table 26: An inquiry if the respondents were also being labeled by the
attributes, adjectives, or expectations identified by them in items P2C.1
and P2C.2 (P2D.5)
Frequency of labeling Verbal Frequency of labeling Verbal
2.99 Moderate 1.97 Sometimes
Table 26 shows that there were 74 respondents in the HSSsbp and 36
respondents in the LSSsbp who answered item P2D.5.d. The higher section
student-respondents said that they moderately (2.99) experienced being tagged
by the labelers with the attributes (adjectives or expectations) that they have
p. 143
identified in item P2C.1 (table 19).On the other hand, the lower section student-
respondents said that they sometimes (1.97) experienced being labeled with the
attributes (adjectives or expectations) that they have identified in item P2C.2.
The table affirms the researcher’s conjecture that expectations (words) or
adjectives student-respondents have with each other are also labels (see
theoretical construct). Again those expectations (table 19 & 20), now labels (table
26), imply meanings and roles student-respondents were dictated (suggested) to
comply (or to reject).
Table 27: An inquiry as to what extent the student-respondents accept the

labeling that they have been experiencing (P2D.6)
3.59 Accepted 2.66 Undecided
Questionnaire item P2D.6’s purpose was to sum-up the respondents’
attitude with the labeling that they were experiencing. Table 27 shows that there
were 81 respondents in the HSSsbp and 32 respondents in the LSSsbp who
answered the item. Higher section student-respondents accepted (3.59) the
labeling that they were experiencing. This implies that they were also accepting
the meanings implied on those labels. This affirmed that higher section student-
respondents were secondary deviants. On the contrary, lower section student-
respondents were undecided (2.66) as to whether they would be accepting the
(implicated meanings of) labels or not. This state of undecidedness implies that
they were primary deviants.
p. 144
Table 28: Subjective Academic Self-concepts
Table 19 Table 20
Attitude of Higher Section Students Attitude of Lower Section Students
Labels Mw Interpretation Labels Mw Interpretation
Brilliant 4.11 Agree Slow 3.04 Undecided
students learners
(high IQ)
Role model 4.01 Agree Easy-go- 3.90 Agree
students lucky
students
(lazy)
Fast learner 4.10 Agree No 2.77 Undecided
students eagerness in
(advance in learning/No
lessons) interest in
studying
Students 4.24 Agree Bully 3.26 Undecided
active in students
academic (magugulo,
activities pasaway,
makukulit)
Disciplined 4.21 Agree Irresponsible 2.44 Disagree
students students
Responsible 4.28 Agree Students 2.55 Undecided
students who
frequently
cut their
classes
Grade- 4.71 Strongly Students 2.93 Undecided
conscious Agree with back
students subjects
Students 3.86 Agree Students 3.77 Agree
proficient in with hidden
speaking and talents and
writing skills; shy
Students 2.83 Undecided
with low IQ
SáMw 33.52 S¿Mw 27.49
N 8 N 9
Overall Mw 4.19 Positive Overall Mw 3.05 Indeterminate
subjective subjective
academic academic
self-concept self-concept
Table 28 shows the juxtaposed attitudes of higher and lower section
student-respondents on different expectations (tables 19 and 20) or labels (table
p. 145
26) associated to their being higher and lower section students. It was
established in table 27 that higher section students were secondary deviants
while lower section students were primary, which were basically determined
through their (attitudes) acceptance or rejection of labels tagged to them. The
researcher contends that the act of accepting or rejecting labels implies
someone’s affirmation or exertion of his (accepted/preferred) self-concept.
Brinkerhoff (et. al., 2002, p.56) defined self-concept as “thoughts about our
personality and social roles.” The word “thoughts” implies someone’s
constructions, attitudes, and understanding of characteristics about his
“personality” (physical, mental, emotional, social, and spiritual) and “social roles.”
“Thoughts” on characteristics applied to “social roles” imply conception of “social
status.” Labels, expectations, and attributions (adjectives) which were indicators
of “social status” someone occupies are also suggestive to his thoughts about his
personality and social role characteristics. Therefore, the acceptance or rejection
of labels, expectations, and attributions (attitude) somehow constitute one’s self-
concept.
The word academic pertains to school especially classroom (curricular)
activities. Therefore, to derive subjective academic self-concept based on labels,
expectations, and attributions (see theoretical construct, p.24), the researcher
has to select labels pertaining to classroom (curricular) activities. These labels
were perceived to be the characteristics of the students belonging to the higher
and lower sections, as indicated in tables 19 and 20. Table 28 shows those
p. 146
selected labels that are most likely to be related to classroom (curricular)
activities (e.g. student behavior and performance).
Self-concepts (i.e. perceived characteristics) would vary depending on the
nature (e.g. meaning) of labels tagged to an individual. For purposes of easy
description, the researcher assumed that there are positive and negative self-
concepts. Positive self-concept occurs when a person accepts positive labels
and expectations associated to him; negative self-concept occurs when a person
accepts negative labels tagged to him.
As shown in table 28, higher section students were tagged with positive,
high expecting labels pertaining to their academic performance and
characteristics. They tend to accept them, implying that they were secondary
deviants, thus, they have positive subjective academic self-concepts.
The table also shows that lower section students were tagged with
negative, low expecting labels regarding their academic characteristics and
behavior. This undecidedness caused the researcher to categorize them as
primary deviants. It consequentially resulted into indeterminate subjective
academic self-concepts.
p. 147
E. The Student-Respondents and Academic Achievement
Academic achievement in this research refers to a condition wherein a
student has high grades, could have won curricular contests, has a big chance to
become one of the school’s cream of the crop, has a reputation of being an
academic achiever, and is being looked upon by his/her teachers, classmates,
and other students.
This part of the research is intended to associate the labels (as well as
their implied meanings, expectations, and attributions) student-respondents have
with their aspiration for academic achievement.
Table 29: Student-Respondents’ attitude on their aspiration for academic

achievement (P2E)
The respondent The respondent
3.91 is aspiring for 3.64 is aspiring for
academic academic
achievement achievement
Table 29 shows that there are 88 respondents in the HSSsbp and 36
respondents in the LSSsbp who answered item P2E. The higher section student-
respondents were aspiring for academic achievement, as indicated by their 3.91
attitudinal weighted mean value. Similarly, lower section student-respondents
were also aspiring (3.64) for academic achievement.
The weighted means confirmed the nature of deviancy engaged in by the
respondents. Higher section students’ act of aspiring for academic achievement
is consistent with their acceptance of the (meanings implied in the) labels
p. 148
(secondary deviancy) being tagged to them. Since positive and high expecting
words (labels) produce positive self-concepts, it implicitly follows that students
with positive self-concepts will aspire for (a more challenging goal, that is)
academic achievement.
Despite the somewhat negative self-concepts that were (theoretically)
produced by low expecting, negative words (labels) tagged to lower section
students, respondents in the LSSsbp seemed optimistic in aspiring for academic
achievement (this was implied by the 3.64 attitudinal weighted mean obtained by
LSSsbp). Their attitude is consistent with their being primary deviants (and also
having indeterminate subjective academic self-concepts). This implies that
although they were being tagged by the labelers with low expecting, negative
labels, lower section students were in the act of opposing them. Lower section
students who felt that “what really matters is the learning that they acquire and
not the labeling that they experience” are also primary deviants because they
treated the labeling phenomena as trivial (unimportant, see theoretical
framework), but then again, it also implies that those respondents were striving
for their own good despite the existence (and the control) of the labels and the
labelers in their lives.
p. 149
Table 30: An inquiry if the labels strengthen the respondents’ self-
confidence to aspire for academic achievement (P2E.2)
2.96 Moderate 2.76 Moderate
respondents in the LSSsbp who answered item P2E.2. The higher section
student-respondents said that their self confidence were moderately (2.96) being
strengthened by the labels, expectation, and attributions being tagged
(associated) to them. Lower section student-respondents also said the same
(2.76, moderate).
The researcher thinks that higher section student-respondents were
consistent in their being secondary deviants (at least they were trying to adhere
to high expectations conveyed by the positive labels), and that the lower section
students were consistent in their being primary deviants (at least they were trying
to defy the low expectations conveyed by the negative labels by trying to do more
useful behavior e.g. studying hard despite the existence of negative labels etc.)
although the labels associated to them tend to be moderately strengthening their
self-confidence to aspire for academic achievement.
The researcher thinks that the results were not strong (moderate) because
the frequency of tagging (labeling) the student-respondents have with the labels,
expectations, and attributes (see tables 24, 25, & 26) associated to their section-
status were also not strong (moderate). The latter explanation could be
p. 150
developed into a very deterministic statement i.e. if labeling is frequent,
strengthening one’s self-confidence to aspire for academic achievement will also
be frequent, put it in other words, strengthening one’s self-confidence to aspire
for academic achievement (especially in the case of primary deviants) is
dependent on how frequent the labeling will take place.
Moderate results, the researcher thinks, could also be due to the operation
of other factors (ex. personal dispositions, ambitions, and goals independent
from what the labels suggest). This means that the labels, expectations, and
attributions themselves are not the only determinants in strengthening self-
confidence to aspire for academic achievement (e.g. personal dispositions,
encouragement of parents and friends without relying to labels, self-confidence
gained from past achievements etc.).
This state of moderateness should not weaken the idea on the effect of
labels, expectations, and attributions on strengthening one’s self-confidence in
aspiring for academic achievement, what matters is, they are still effectors and
their effect exists (although moderately).
F. Perceived distance the Student-Respondents have

between their selves and Academic Achievement
This was the researcher’s deliberate attempt to apply Georg Simmel’s
theory of Distance and Value in the school setting (i.e. the labeling phenomena).
The researcher thinks that meanings implied and/or communicated by positive
and/or negative labels are suggestive on how student-respondents would
determine their distance between themselves and academic achievement.
p. 151
The researcher equated neglectable with the distance “too near” (see
theoretical framework), attainable with the distance “not too near yet not too far,”
and impossible with the distance “too far.” The prefix “very” in the options of item
P2F only denotes a degree of difference in intensity (see footnote on p. 84) from
the meanings of their root words. The word attainable implies exertion of
considerable effort to get academic achievement; therefore, academic
achievement becomes a goal. Hierarchy of goals is different for every individual;
therefore, academic achievement as a goal need not be the paramount goal for
every individual. But the implicit meaning is that, academic achievement is still a
goal, especially when someone describes his distance from it as attainable.
Table 31: The student-respondents’ conception of distance between them

and academic achievement (P2F)
Distance Verbal Distance Verbal
2.63 Attainable 2.57 Attainable
respondents in the LSSsbp who answered item P2F. Higher section students
identified their distance from academic achievement as attainable (2.63). Lower
section students also said the same (2.57).
This implies that academic achievement for higher and lower section
students was not too near (easy to obtain) yet not too far (difficult to obtain) from
them (see theoretical framework). Considering the fact (established by previous
discussions) that higher section student-respondents were secondary deviants
p. 152
implies that labels, expectations, and attributes associated to them were
suggestive to the student-respondents’ conception of distance between them and
academic achievement. Thus, positive and high expecting labels such as
matatalino, responsible, role model students etc. were suggesting HS student
respondents’ that they were capable of attaining academic achievement.
Negative labels, on the other hand, such as tamad, slow learners, bully, bobo
etc. suggest lower section students (or other students who might be tagged with
those) that they are incapable of attaining academic achievement, implying that
academic achievement is impossible to reach and is far from them. Fortunately,
the lower section-student respondents were primary deviants, thus, although
labels associated to them convey negative meanings, they were trying to defy
them.
Previous tables (29 and 31) also imply that higher and (especially) lower
section students have high self-efficacy. Myers (1999, p.50) described it as “a
sense that [some]one is competent and effective, distinguished from self-esteem,
one’s self worth.” The researcher thinks that high self-efficacy (belief on one’s
potentialities even having low self-esteem) still is a manifestation of primary
deviancy. Persistent belief on the self’s capabilities implies that the individual is
not losing hope and is not totally surrendering to negative labels and
expectations tagged/brought by the labelers to/for them (as exemplified by lower
section student-respondents who agreed [3.77] that lower section students have
hidden talents and skills and are only shy and lazy [3.90], see table 20).
p. 153
G. The Student-Respondents on Motivation for Academic
Achievement
It was mentioned in the theoretical framework that motivation in this
research meant the persistence of behavior —the degree of aspiring for
academic achievement and the degree the chosen behavior is undertaken—a
student-respondent should have until academic achievement (goal) is reached.
There is a need to consider these two factors (aspiration and persistence in
behavior) in order for this research not to account for Robert Merton’s ritualism,
thus, if a student is not aspiring for academic achievement but is studying (hard),
he is a ritualist, meaning, he goes to school because it is part of his routine (or
every day life), he is doing his assignments and projects just to comply with the
requirements –in short, he does not see the activities at school as part of giving
value to learning and knowledge and as very important preparations for a better
life, the term “makagraduate lang” is indicative to such.
Ritualism is the second possible response to anomie. Here,

people decide that they have little chance of attaining any
significant success and so reject this as a goal. They remain,
however, loosely committed to the conventional means. They
simply go through the motions in a ritualistic way, with little or no
commitment to the approved goal. (Chapter 2: Theories and
theorizing, 2002, p.48)
The degree of aspiring for academic achievement was tackled in the
previous subsection. This present subsection tackled how labels could have
become contributory to the degree the chosen behavior is undertaken (if the
behavior is persistent, long term, sustained). This caused the researcher to
consider activities student-respondents were expected to be engaged in within
the school setting.
p. 154
Table 32: An inquiry if the labels strengthen the student-respondents’
self-confidence when doing activities at school (P2F.2)
Frequency Verbal Frequency Verbal
3.33 Moderate 3.06 Moderate
respondents in the LSSsbp who answered item F.2. Higher section student-
respondents said that the labels moderately (3.33) strengthen their self-
confidence in doing their activities at school. Lower section student-respondents
also said that same (3.06).
Similar to table 30, the researcher thinks that moderate strengthening of
self-confidence is caused by the moderate labeling experienced by the student-
respondents (see table 23, 24, 25, & 26).
Despite these, higher and lower section student-respondents were still
consistent with the type of deviancy that they were engaged in. The table above
only shows that labels, expectations, and attributions are existing and do have
the capacity for strengthening the students’ self-confidence when performing
activities at school, however, how often that strengthening takes place was
described by the respondents as moderately.
p. 155
Table 33: Frequencies student-respondents have on some selected
academic activities when considering their labels of being
higher or lower section students (P2F.3)
Selected N Frequency Mw N Frequency Mw
school NA: n (Mw) Verbal NA: n (Mw) Verbal
performance Interpretation Interpretation
1. I am 86 3.74 Always 35 3.34 Moderate
studying NA:4 NA:14
hard
2. I am joining 84 1.76 Sometimes 32 1.13 Rare
contests in NA:5 NA:17
my school
3. I am 84 4.18 Always 37 3.78 Always
following NA:5 NA:12
the rules of
my school
4.I am joining 82 2.68 Moderate 32 1.63 Sometimes
good NA:8 NA:17
organization
s in my
school
N refers to number of respondents, NA refers to No Answer
respondents in the LSSsbp who answered item P2F.3.1. Evident on the table is
how higher section students, again, confirmed that they were secondary
deviants. Since majority of the labels associated to higher section students are
positive and high expecting (especially those pertaining to academic
performance), adhering to such, and making them as part of someone’s self-
concept require a somewhat consistent behavior (3.74, always) in actualizing
them (including their aspiration for academic achievement, see table 29, 30, and
31). The table also affirmed that since lower section students were primary
deviants and were aspiring for academic achievement (see table 29), they were
also studying hard, although moderately (3.34). The two subsample populations
p. 156
were not ritualistic, the research thinks, because they were both aspiring for
academic achievement (table 29) and that they were engaged in studying hard
(table 33) in order for them to attain academic achievement.
Table 33 also shows that higher section student-respondents tended to be
more engaged (1.76) in joining contests than the lower section student-
respondents (1.13). The two weighted means were small; suggesting thin both
subsample populations were not that too engaged in joining contests within their
school. The researcher thinks that this is because teachers or class presidents at
least, are more likely to choose their most “valuable” (e.g. intelligent)
student/classmate to represent their class in academic and non-academic
contests within their school. It seems then that class representation in school
contests is independent from the effects of labels.
Table 33 also shows that higher and lower section student-respondents
were always (4.18 and 3.78) following school rules. This affirms, again, that
higher section students were secondary deviants (especially on the labels “role
model students” and “disciplined students,” see table 19 % table 24). This also
implies that lower section students were primary deviants, that is, despite the
negative and low expecting words that were being tagged to them; they still
follow the rules of the school (see table 20 & table 25). One could argue that
following school rules is commonly ritualistic since students are likely to take-for-
granted values held by the school in imposing specific school rules (e.g. peace
and order, excellence etc.). Again, the argument has a point, but considering that
labels suggest roles and expectations on how one should conduct on specific
p. 157
settings (especially for secondary deviants) suggest that students are somehow
(although not always) cognizant on these school values, however, implied in their
act of “performing” their roles (e.g. students wearing ID indicating conformity in
cherishing peace and order).
Table 33 also shows that higher section student-respondents were more
“inclined” (2.68: moderate) in joining good organizations in school than lower
section student-respondents (1.63, sometimes). This again, affirms that higher
section students were being secondary deviants, especially in their label “student
leaders.”
The researcher thinks that meanings conveyed by the labels account for
the differences in frequencies of selected school activities student-respondents
were engaged in. Positive, high expecting labels such as superior, role model,
intelligent etc. tagged to higher section students suggest that they should be
exerting much effort in attaining academic achievement than those exerted by
average and lower section students (these labels also imply that higher section
students should maintain their dominance over the other students).
One could also account for the operation of intervening variables in the
scene; especially the differences in teaching strategies (i.e. volume of work
loads) teachers give to different types of learners (e.g. higher section students
were prone to be given much assignments and research projects than other
students, making them more focused on their lessons by spending more time in
studying). Socioeconomic status could also be operant on these (e.g. poorer
students might be involved in many household choirs than other well-to-do
p. 158
students, thus, reducing their time to study). Subculture of friends (barkada) is
another factor, because its members’ frequency of involvement in those
academic activities might depend on the values and activities of their groups (e.g.
barkadas might spend more time in by standing than by doing more productive
activities).
Table 34: If the Student-Respondents were motivated

for academic achievement (P2G)
Motivated for Moderately
3.76 academic 3.09 motivated for
achievement academic
achievement
respondents in the LSSsbp who answered item P2G. The table shows that
higher section students tend to be more motivated (3.76) in attaining academic
achievement than lower section students (3.09). The researcher thinks that high
expectations conveyed by positive labels to higher section students account for
this. Lower section students, conversely, seem to be moderately motivated for
academic achievement because of the low expectations conveyed by negative
labels to lower section students. The researcher thinks that intervening variables
i.e. teaching strategies and volume of workloads teachers give to different
learners, subculture of friends [barkadas], and socioeconomic status were also
operant on this, among others.
p. 159
Table 35 attempted to verify if respondents of both subsample population
were really motivated and were not just ritualistic.
Table 35: Mapping on motivation
Table 27 Table 28 Table 29 Table 31 Table 33.1 Table 34

Student extent the Subjective Student- Conception If the If
Respon- student- Academic Respondents’ of distance respondents respondents
dents respondents Self-concept attitude on between were were
accept the their selves and studying motivated
labeling that aspiration for academic hard for
they were academic achievement academic
experiencing achievement achievement
Higher Accepted Positive Aspiring Attainable Always Motivated
section (Secondary
students Deviant)
Lower Undecided Indeterminate Aspiring Attainable Moderate Moderately
section (Primary motivated
students Deviant)
Table 34 affirms that the respondents were not ritualistic. It also shows
that higher section students were more motivated for academic achievement
than lower section students. The variation on answers by the two subsample
populations became evident in table 32. no.1. Aside from the operation of certain
intervening variables cited in discussing table 29, the researcher thinks that
structural constraints could also account for this variation, meaning, in the social
relationships where students are involved, there are factors and circumstances
which constrain or enable higher and lower section students to be motivated for
academic achievement, such as when high expectations from teachers, parents,
classmates, other students etc. are expressed (materialized) by differently
treating higher and lower section students in different situations (e.g. in programs
[one respondent said that higher section students are likely to be near the stage
than other students], in the allocation of different social resources [good
p. 160
opportunities are likely to be given to higher section students], and even in more
face-to-face interactions [teachers could be more friendly, interested, and self-
giving to students whom they perceive as intelligent than others]).
Although the latter discussion did not debunk that the higher and lower
section student-respondents were motivated for academic achievement (and
were consistent in their being secondary and primary deviants), the reader was
also exposed to the idea that motivation is so complex that no specific variable
solely determines it. This research is consistent in claiming that the meanings
implied by the labels, expectations, and attributes contribute to the degree the
student-respondents were motivated for academic achievement.
H. 1 The Student-Respondents and their Immediate Social

Sphere of Interaction
Labels, expectations, and attributions are likely to be
communicated/expressed to students through their interactions with other people
within specific social contexts; thus, there is a need to access if the labels affect
some social relationships within these contexts (i.e. immediate and non-
immediate social sphere of interaction).
Immediate social sphere, in this research, refers to social space most likely
occupied by groups of people individuals (i.e. respondents) are most likely to
have immediate influence. These are groups of people which individuals are
more likely to be with in their everyday lives. Due to frequent (or sustained)
contact (person-to-person), individuals could influence the way groups work, as
well as be influenced by the ways groups work. In this research, groups of people
p. 161
within an individual’s immediate social sphere are the friends, the families, and
the teachers.
Table 36: Labels, expectations, attributions, and the sectioning-issue as

possible effectors within the respondents’ immediate social sphere of
interaction (P2H.A.1, 2, 3, & 4)
Frequen- Mw Frequen- Mw
Consequence N cy (Mw) Verbal N / (%) cy (Mw) Verbal
NA: n Interpretation Interpretation
1. If the labels 84 1.02 Rare 42 1.81 Sometimes
affect the
choice of NA: 6 NA: 7
friends
2. If the labels 85 2.47 Sometimes 37 1.86 Sometimes
etc. unify the
respondents’ NA: 5 NA:12
class
3. If their 83 3.65 Always 46 3.30 Moderate
teachers
compare the NA: 7 NA: 3
respondents’
section with
other
sections that
they were
handling
4. If the 82 1.23 Rare 43 1.19 Rare
sectioning
issue affects NA: 8 NA: 6
the
respondents’
family
relationship.
N refers to number of respondents, NA refers to No Answer
respondents in the LSSsbp who answered item P2HA.1. The first row shows that
higher section students tend to be rarely (1.02) influenced by the labels and its
associated attributions and expectations when choosing friends. Lower section
students, conversely, were sometimes (1.81) influenced by labels in choosing
friends. It seems that lower section students tend to be more sensitive on what
p. 162
section-status a person belongs before considering him/her as a friend than
higher section students. This implies that lower section students tend to be more
affected by the labels than higher section students when choosing friends.
Table 36 also shows that there were 85 respondents in the HSSsbp and
37 respondents in the LSSsbp who answered item P2HA.2. As shown in the
second row, both higher and lower section students were sometimes (2.47 &
1.86) unified solely by their labels. It seems also that there are other unifiers
other than student-labels, such as sole camaraderie among classmates,
cooperation against a common enemy such as (other) teachers or other
students. Also, one should not neglect occasional misunderstanding within each
section which could be detrimental, in some cases, to their solidarity. The
researcher thinks that labels could be unifying in times of comparisons and
contests between sections. This could be unifying since it enables students to
know “which side of the fence they belong” and “which to focus their attention
and efforts in eliminating their rivals.”
Table 36 shows that 83 respondents in the HSSsbp and 46 respondents in
the LSSsbp answered item P2HA.3. The third row shows that higher section
students tend to experience frequent comparisons (3.65, always) by their
teachers with the other higher/lower sections that they were handling than the
lower section students (3.30, moderate). When they were asked whether
comparisons were beneficial to them or not, they gave varied dispositions.
p. 163
Table 37: If comparisons were beneficial to the respondents (P2HA.3.b)
Attitude Higher Section Students Lower Section Students
Favorable 28.79% 22.58%
Fair 24.24% 45.16%
Unfavorable 46.97% 32.26%
100% (66) (31)
No answer 16 15
Table 37 shows that of the 83 respondents in the HSSsbp who said that
they were always being compared by their teachers with the other sections (table
35, 3rd row); only 66 respondents answered item P2HA.3.b. Majority (46.97% or
31respondents) of them said that those comparisons were unfavorable to them,
28.79% (19 respondents) considered it favorable on their part, and 24.24% (16
respondents) said that the comparisons were fair. Those who took the
unfavorable side mostly tackled about the pressures brought to them by
comparisons (e.g. one respondent said “kasi tingin ng ibang teachers perpekto
na ang nasa higher section kaya pagnagkamali lagot!, another said “hindi ko
alam, minsan nga feeling ko natotorture ako mentally”), some were admitting
their shortcomings which might have caused their teachers to compare them to
other sections (e.g. some respondents said “minsan may nagagawa silang hindi
namin kaya” and “kasi minsan may ugali rin kaming pang lower section”), while
others have seen comparisons as beneficial to them (e.g. answers like
“pinapahiwatig ng mga guro na itaas pa namin yung kung anong meron kami” ,
“sa pamamagitan ng pagkukumpara, nalalaman namin kung ano ang
babaguhin,” and “kasi mas mataas tingin samin kaysa sa mga lower sections”).
Table 37 also shows that of the 46 respondents who experienced
comparison by their teachers to other sections (table 36, 3rd row), only 31
p. 164
respondents answered item P2HA.3.b. Majority (45.16% or 14 respondents) of
them felt that the comparisons were just, 32.26% perceived those as
unfavorable, and 22.58% felt that comparisons were favorable on their side.
Those who take the just side saw means which they think were justifiable bases
as to why they were being compared (e.g. “dahil sa grades” and “dahil mahina
kaming umintindi ng mga itinuturo sa amin”), these were similar to the responses
of students who saw comparisons as beneficial to them (e.g. “kasi pagnalelabel
ka, mag-aaral ka talaga”), others, however, saw comparisons as manifestations
in demeaning them (e.g. “kasi, kahit hindi kami ganon, ganon yung sinasabi at
tingin nila,” “kasi sila daw matalino, kami makulet at magulo...bobo pa!,”
“nakakababa ng loob,” and “nakakaasar din po minsan”).
In compliance to section E, Chapter 3, analysis of pattern of social
interaction (PSI) regarding student-respondents-their teachers relationship, table
38 was presented below.
Table 38: Pattern of Social Interaction (PSI) of Student-Respondents’

section with their teachers (P2H.B.4)
% Frequen Mw % Frequen Mw
PSI in cy Verbal in cy Verbal
HSS (Mw) Interpreta- LSS (Mw) Interpreta-
sbp tion sbp tion
Competition 48.61 2.89 Moderate
Conflict 47.22 2.32 Sometimes
Cooperation 80.56 3.72 Always Analysis for LSSsbp is
Differentiation 50 3.47 Moderate void. N does not meet the
Domi Superior 34.72 3.44 Moderate acceptance level.
nation: Subordinate 38.89 3.71 Always
Toleration 22.22 2.75 Moderate
100% (72) (26)
p. 165
Table 38 shows that there were 72 respondents in the HSSsbp who
answered item P2HB.4, majority (80.56% or 58 respondents) of them selected
cooperation as their PSI with their teachers which was occurring always (3.72),
50% (36 respondents) said that they have differentiation as their PSI with their
teachers occurring moderately (3.47), 48.61% (35 respondents) identified
competition as their PSI with their teachers occurring moderately (2.89), 47.22%
(34 respondents) identified conflict as occurring sometimes (2.32), 38.89% ( 28
respondents) rightly identified that they were always (3.71) subordinate under
their teachers, and 34.72% (25 respondents) believed that they were moderately
(3.44) superior over their teachers.
Despite the higher section students’ “unfair” description on their condition
when they being compared by their teachers with the other higher/lower sections
that they were handling (see table 37), table 38 shows that higher section
students and their teachers were always in cooperation with each other when
doing their activities at school.
The researcher was not able to derive the PSI of lower section students
with their teachers since the number of respondents in the LSSsbp did not meet
the acceptance level.
Going back to table 36, there were 82 respondents in the HSSsbp and 43
respondents in the LSSsbp who answered P2HA.4 (row 4). As shown in the
table, higher and lower section students rarely (1.23 & 1.19) experienced the
labels, attributes, and expectations as affecting their family relationships. The
p. 166
researcher thinks that family support received by the students was somewhat
independent of the labels the student have.
H.2 The Student-Respondents and their Non-immediate

Social Sphere of Interaction (General Audience)
Non-immediate social sphere of interaction are composed of groups of
people outside the immediate influence/contact of individuals. These groups of
people are most likely to rely and/or build their inferences on typifications (e.g.
labels, stereotypes) when considering (talking) certain characteristics about
groups of people (e.g. student-respondents) whom they do not personally know.
Some groups of people included in this research which the researcher thinks are
outside the “immediate scope of interaction of the majority of the
respondents/students” are the other students, other teachers, and the school
administration (collectively called general audience).
The following were patterns of social interaction (PSI) that were
operationally defined in this research:
1. Competition – (Kompetisyon) happens if there are two or more groups
which compete to achieve a common goal (e.g. winning a contest,
valuable resources, to get the attention or sympathy of a valuable
person [or the majority of the population] etc.). Competition has rules
(e.g. sportsmanship) unlike conflict.
2. Conflict – (Away) rules of competition are broken as opposing parties
become openly antagonistic with each other. Physical (e.g. hitting),
p. 167
verbal (e.g. nagging), and mental (e.g. moral damages) abuses may be
involved.
3. Cooperation – (Kooperasyon) a harmonious relationship of mutual
dependence with one another for their common improvement.
4. Differentiation –in order to lessen if not avoid conflict, authorities (e.g.
teachers, group leaders, admin) give equally appearing (but different)
“goals” to each group so they would not compete for the same thing.
Specialization on certain field of endeavour (division of labor) could also
be described as a form of differentiation.44
5. Domination –happens when one party sees the other party as inferior
(subordinate) of them (superior).
6. Toleration –parties co-exists without care with one another since they
practice the “live and the let live policy.”
44
According to Panopio et. al. (2004, p.197) “differentiation of social status, life-style, and
prestige leads to the creation of subcultures as well as the development of social
stratification.”
p. 168
section with other higher section students (P2HB.1)
% in Frequen Mw % in Frequen Mw
PSI HSS cy Verbal LSS cy Verbal
sbp (Mw) Interpreta- sbp (Mw) Interpreta-
tion tion
Competition 79.01 3.72 Always 82.76 2.63 Moderate
Conflict 48.15 1.92 Sometimes 65.52 2.21 Sometimes
Cooperation 65.43 3.70 Always 75.86 2.77 Moderate
Differentiation 50.62 3.80 Always 55.17 2.94 Moderate
Domi Superior 44.44 3.58 Always 13.79 4.25 Always
nation: Subordinate 16.05 3.15 Moderate 31.03 3.22 Moderate
Toleration 30.86 3.16 Moderate 34.48 2.70 Moderate
100% (81) (29) –special case –
P2HB.1. Majority (79.01% or 64 respondents) of them said that the PSI
Competition was always (3.72) occurring among higher section students, 65.43%
(53 respondents) said that it was actually cooperation which was always (3.70)
occurring among higher section students, 50.62% (41 respondents) said that
higher section students were always (3.80) being differentiated from each other,
48.15% (39 respondents) said that sometimes (1.92) higher section students
were engaged in conflict with each other, 44.44% (36 respondents) claimed that
they were always (3.58) superior than other higher section students (possibly
these were respondents from section Alexander), 30.86% (25 respondents) said
that higher section students treat each other in moderate (3.16) toleration, and
16.05% (13 respondents) felt that they were subordinate with other higher
section students (possibly these were respondents from section Constantine).
p. 169
P2HB.1. Majority (82.76% or 24 respondents) of them said that competition could
be moderately (2.63) found between them and higher section students, 75.86%
(22 respondents) said that cooperation also could be moderately (2.77) found
between them and higher section students, 65.52% (19 respondents) recognized
that sometimes (2.21) there were conflicts between them and the higher section
students, 55.17% (16 respondents) said that they were moderately (2.94) being
differentiated from each other, 34.48% (10 respondents) said that they
moderately (2.70) treat higher section students with toleration, 31.03% (9
respondents) said that they felt moderately (3.22) subordinate with the higher
section students, and 13.79% (4 respondents) felt that they were always (4.25)
superior to higher section students.
Table 39 only shows that higher section students tend to be always
competing with other higher section students, while lower section students tend
to see themselves in moderate competition with higher section students.
p. 170
section with other lower section students (P2HB.2)

sbp tion sbp tion
Competition 58.82 2.93 Moderate 77.42 2.88 Moderate
Conflict 52.94 2.72 Moderate 64.52 2.55 Moderate
Cooperation 60.29 2.93 Moderate 67.74 2.19 Sometimes
Differentiation 51.47 3.09 Moderate 54.84 2.47 Sometimes
Domi Superior 41.18 3.39 Moderate 9.68 3.0 Moderate
nation: Subordinate 14.71 3.40 Moderate 29.03 2.22 Sometimes
Toleration 38.24 3.15 Moderate 51.61 2.13 Sometimes
100% (68) (31)
P2HB.2. Majority (60.29% or 41 respondents) of them identified cooperation as a
moderately (2.93) existing PSI with lower section students, 58.82% (40
respondents) said that competition with lower section students was moderately
(2.93) existing, 52.94% (36 respondents) said that conflict was moderately (2.72)
existing between higher and lower section students, 51.47% (35 respondents)
said that higher and lower section students were differentiated from each other,
41.18% (28 respondents) of them said that they were moderately (3.39) superior
than lower section students, 38.24% (26 respondents) said that they moderately
(3.15) treat lower section students with toleration, and 14.71% (10 respondents)
of them felt that they were moderately (3.40) subordinated with lower section
students.
P2HB.2. Majority (77.42% or 24 respondents) of them said that lower section
p. 171
students were moderately (2.88) in competition with each other, 67.74% (21
respondents) said that lower section students were sometimes (2.19)
cooperating with one another, 64.52% (20 respondents) said that conflict could
be moderately (2.55) found among lower section students, 54.84% (17
respondents) said that lower section students were sometimes (2.47)
differentiated with one another, 51.61% (16 respondents) have sometimes (2.13)
treated other lower section students with toleration, 29.03% (9 respondents)
recognized that they were sometimes (2.22) being subordinated by other lower
section students (possibly these were respondents from section Hadrian), and
9.68% (3 respondents) said that they were superior than other lower section
students (possibly these were respondents from section Antoninus).
Basically, the table implies a contradiction of what higher and lower
section students perceived with (fellow) lower section students. Higher section
students have lower section students as their co-operators, while lower section
students saw themselves as moderately competing with one another. However,
considering that a significant percentage of HSSsbp (58.82%) answered
competition, the researcher thinks that higher section students also tend to see
themselves as in competition with lower section students.
Considering table 40, the researcher thinks that higher and lower section
students tend to see themselves competing with one another.
p. 172
section with the middle/average section students (P2HB.3)
sbp tion sbp tion
Competition 70.59 3.35 Moderate 62.07 2.83 Moderate
Conflict 52.94 2.36 Sometimes 62.07 2.56 Moderate
Cooperation 67.65 3.04 Moderate 62.07 2.83 Moderate
Differentiation 55.88 3.18 Moderate 44.83 2.08 Sometimes
Domi Superior 45.59 3.16 Moderate 6.90 3.0 Moderate
nation: Subordinate 13.24 3.11 Moderate 34.48 2.0 Sometimes
Toleration 42.65 3.03 Moderate 34.48 2.60 Moderate
100% (68) (29) –special case –
P2HB.3. Majority (70.59% or 48 respondents) identified competition as
moderately (3.35) existing between higher and middle/average section students,
67.65% (46 respondents) said that there was cooperation between higher and
middle section students but that its frequency was only moderate (3.04), 55.88%
(38 respondents) said that higher and middle section students were moderately
(3.18) differentiated, 52.94% (36 respondents) said that higher section students
were sometimes (2.36) having conflict with middle section students, 45.59% (31
respondents) said that higher section students were moderately (3.16) superior
than middle section students, 42.65% ( 29 respondents) said that they were
moderately (3.03) treating middle section students with toleration, and 13.24% (9
respondents) said that they were moderately (3.11) subordinate with the middle
section students.
p. 173
P2HB.3. Majority (62.07% or 18 respondents) of them said that lower section
students were moderately (2.83 & 2.56) in competition, in conflict, and in
cooperation with middle section students, 44.83% (13 respondents) said that
lower and middle section students were sometimes (2.08) differentiated with one
another, 34.48% (10 respondents) said that lower section students were
sometimes (2.0) subordinated by middle section students, the same percentage
of respondents also said that they moderately (2.60) treated middle section
students with toleration, and 6.90% (2 respondents) said that they felt
moderately (3.0) superior with middle section students.
Table 41 only shows that higher section students tend to have competition
as their PSI with middle section students, and that lower section students tend to
have competition, conflict, and cooperation as their PSI with middle section
students.
p. 174
section with other teachers (P2HB.5)
sbp tion sbp tion
Cooperation 76.81 3.43 Moderate Analysis for LSSsbp is
Differentiation 57.97 3.25 Moderate void. N does not meet the
nation: Subordinate 31.88 3.27 Moderate
100% (69) (24)
P2HB.5. Majority (76.81% or 53 respondents) of them have cooperation as a
moderately (3.43) existing PSI with faculty members that were not their teachers,
57.97% (40 respondents) said that higher section students and “other teachers”
were moderately (3.25) differentiated from one another, 52.17% (36
respondents) said that there was moderate (3.06) competition between higher
section students and “other teachers,” 44.93% (31 respondents) said that higher
section students and “other teachers” were sometimes (2.16) in conflict with one
another, 31.88% (22 respondents) said that they were moderately (3.27)
subordinated by “other teachers,” the same percentage said that they treat other
faculty members with moderate (3.01) toleration, while 30.43% (21 respondents)
even believed that they were moderately (3.10) superior than other teachers.
Table 42 only shows that higher section students were moderately in
cooperation with faculty members that were not their teachers.
p. 175
with “other teachers” since the number of respondents in the LSSsbp did not
meet the acceptance level.

section with the school administration (P2HB.6)
sbp tion sbp tion
Cooperation 74.60 3.60 Always Analysis for LSSsbp is
Differentiation 42.86 3.0 Moderate void. N does not meet the
nation: Subordinate 30.16 3.47 Moderate
100% (63) (19)
P2HB.6. Of them, majority (74.60% or 47 respondents) said that they were
always (3.60) having cooperation with the school administration, 42.86% (27
respondents) said that they were moderately (3.0) differentiated with the school
administration, 41.27% (26 respondents) said that they were moderately (2.58) in
competition with the school administration, 39.68% (25 respondents) said that
they were sometimes (1.72) in conflict with the school administration, 30.16% (19
respondents) recognized their moderate (3.47) subordination by the school
administration while 26.98% (17 respondents) even claimed that they were
moderately (2.94) superior than the school administrators, the same percentage
p. 176
said that higher section students moderately (2.28) treat the school
administrators in toleration.
Table 43 only shows that higher section students were always in
cooperation with the school administration.
with the school administration since the number of respondents in the LSSsbp
did not meet the acceptance level.
As said in the beginning of this part, people usually rely on typifications
(stereotypes, labels, expectations, and attributions) when considering people
whom they do not personally know (or have least personal contact). The
conception of typifications somehow affects how a person would (see) relate to
another person (who he has typified i.e. labeled, attributed, expected). These
typifications need not be true in the real context; however, it is in the minds of the
people relying on typifications which make those typifications to become
materialized (through their actions) at least, in this research, on their social
relationships (Definition of the Situation, see theoretical construct.). Prominence
of typifications as well as relying on them depends on, the researcher thinks, C.
H. Cooley’s theory on stratification, specifically little communication and
enlightenment (e.g. higher and lower section students could have perceived
those PSIs to other students, other teachers, and the school administration
because they have little contact with each other, hence, entailing a big probability
on little enlightenment with the true characteristics of each other [e.g. students
p. 177
could perceive other students, other teachers, and school administrators as their
enemies where in fact they were not]),
I. The Student-Respondents’ Social Self-Concepts

As stated in chapter 1 and 3, this research made the determination of the
student-respondents’ social self-concepts as solely based on the pattern of social
interaction (PSI) that they have chosen when considering some in-school social
relationships in P2HB (non-immediate social sphere) items (see also footnote in
p.25).
Table 44: The Student-Respondents’ Self-concepts based on the patterns of

social interaction identified by them within their in-school non-immediate
social sphere
Higher Section Lower Section
In-school relationships Students’ Students’
social self-concept social self-concepts
Between their section Competitor Competitor
and other higher section (always) (moderate)
students
and other lower section Co-operator (moderate)
students (moderate)
and the middle/average (moderate) In conflict
section students Co-operator
(moderate)
Between their section Co-operator Data insufficient
and their teachers (always)
Between their section Co-operator Data insufficient
and other teachers (moderate)
Between their section Co-operator
and the school (always) Data insufficient
administration
As shown in table 44 first row, higher and lower section student-
respondents were both being competitors when considering (other) higher
section students. Implied in the table is that higher section students tend to be
p. 178
more competing to other higher section students than lower section students do.
Competition for academic achievement was seen as their common goal. Through
excellence and sustained (good) academic performance, they try to eliminate
one another. Competing for academic achievements implicitly caused them to
compete for the social prestige accompanied by academic achievements.
Sustained good academic performance, as their way of eliminating others, also
has the latent function of maintaining them at the top of the student-hierarchy
(e.g. sustained studying hard consequentially results to high grades and
academic gains which enabled them to be higher section students for 2 or more
years, see table 13). With regards to the lower section students, aside from
academic competition with higher section students, they also seem to compete
for attention and prestige higher section students enjoyed from their teachers and
the school administrators.
Table 44 (second row) also shows that higher section students tend to
view lower section students as their co-operators (although row 1 implies that
lower section students tend to compete with them). The row also shows that
lower section students were also competing with each other.
Third row of table 44 shows that higher section students have social self-
concepts of moderately being competitor with middle section students. Lower
section students, on the other hand, tend to have varying self-concepts of being
moderately competitor, in-conflict, and being co-operator with/of middle section
students. It seems that majority of the lower section students do not constantly
p. 179
see middle section students as competing with them (unlike higher section
students).
The fourth, fifth, and sixth rows show that higher section students saw
themselves as co-operators with their teachers, other teachers, and the school
administration (e.g. in striving for excellence and in following school rules). Data
insufficient for LSSsbp, hence, the researcher could not derive their social self-
concepts.
Applying G. H. Mead’s idea that people act in accord with their self-
concepts, the researcher thinks that the student-respondents social self-concepts
were the reasons as to why higher and lower section students tend to have
varying attitudes/treatment/behaviors with themselves, their teachers, the other
students, the other teachers, and the school administrators.
The researcher thinks that as long as in-school relationships were not
improved, true cooperation could not be achieved.
J. Benefits of the present student-sectioning

Table 45: An inquiry if the respondents find homogenous student-
sectioning and the labeling that they were experiencing beneficial for their
personal development (P2I)

Frequency Verbal Frequency Verbal
3.24 Moderate 2.22 Sometimes
respondents in the LSSsbp who answered item P2I. Higher section student-
p. 180
respondents tend to view homogenous student sectioning and the labeling as
moderately (3.24) beneficial to them. Their reasons imply that through sectioning
and labeling, one would be able to know his/her abilities and skills; that
sectioning and labeling makes the identification of someone clear as to where
he/she belongs; that it was homogenous student-sectioning and the labeling
which caused him/her to study hard (responses such as “nachachallenge
kami/ako na patunayan sa sarili ko na kaya ko,” “kasi nakikilala ka at
napapagaya din sa mga kaklase na mag-aral ng mabuti,” “para mahasa ang isip
ko saka madagdagan ang kaibigan kong matatlino,” and “dahil nagtulak sa akin
na matutong lumaban para sa pangarap ko”); that it was in homogenous student
sectioning and labeling which informs someone that he/she is superior (prestige
indicator, responses such as “dahil masaya ako sa section ko...at hindi mababa
ang tingin sa akin ng mga schoolmates ko,” and “kasi maraming opportunities na
naibibigay”); The researcher thinks that the results became moderate because
there were also respondents who recognized that it was not on sectioning and
labeling which determines the capacities of individuals (responses such as “lahat
naman pantay-pantay, walang bobo”); that homogenous student-sectioning and
labeling were sometimes not beneficial and detrimental on their part (responses
such as “hindi rin masyadong masaya kasi puro kompetensya na minsan
nagiging sanhi ng pag-aaway,” and “kasi yung iba sinasabi na mayayabang daw
kasi hindi na daw namamansin”), others did not give their reasons.
Lower section students, on the other hand, viewed the present student-
sectioning and the labeling that they were experiencing as sometimes (2.22)
p. 181
beneficial to them. Reason such as “kasi dito natututo kung papaano
makakaangat sa aking buhay,” “para pantay-pantay kami sa room,” “kasi kung
nasa lower section ka, pagnalelabel ka, mag-aaral ka talaga ng mabuti tulad ng
ginagawa ko ngayon,” “naisip ko na kahit anong section dapat maging pantay-
pantay ang pagtingin...,” “mas mabuti nang mapunta ka sa kung saan ka dapat
nararapat,” “dahil dito minsan gusto kong pahalagahan ang aking pag-aaral at
magsumikap ng unti,” and “maganda narin yung ganun kasi...sabi ng ibang tao,
nakakahawa daw ang taong tamad kaya ayaw na po naming silang idamay pa
kasi alam namin na ganun kami.” Others, however, were negative on their views,
such as “doon kasi nagsisimula ang away,” “dahil ito ang dahilan kung bakit
maraming mag-aaral na may low-self esteem,” and “parang nakakainsulto... ang
paglelabel parehas lang naman tayong estudyante...” Many did not give their
reasons.
It is somewhat clear now that Homogenous student-sectioning has the
manifest function of facilitating administration and learning of students. Latent
function includes its enabling process to inform students which side of the fence
they belong. The stratification of sections created by it seems to be a reward
system among students, since students with excellent performance were likely to
be placed to prestigious higher sections unlike poor performing students. This
informs (through labels) what types of behavior (roles) students are expected to
perform at school (to show, homogenous student-sectioning has the latent
function of enabling, through high expectations, higher section students to
maintain [retain], through exerting more and sustained effort, their superior
p. 182
positions of being at the higher sections). Homogenous student-sectioning
implicitly implies the perpetuation of negative labels, expectations, and
attributions through tagging (labeling) lower section students with such. The
existence of those (i.e. tagging with negative labels) is a dysfunction which could
cause lower section students to have low self-esteems (to develop inferiority
complex, etc. It is a dysfunction because the meanings implied and conveyed by
those labels are explicitly contradictory to what education should do for low
achieving students i.e. “those who lag behind...” see p. 47). As Oakes and Guiton
in 1995, and Page in 1991 (as cited by Slavin, 2003, p. 298-300) put it, “most
damaging effect of tracking is its stigmatizing effect on students who are
assigned to low tracks [lower sections]; the message these students get is that
academic success is not within their capabilities.” Other dysfunctions include
feelings of envy, insecurity and animosity with other students not within
someone’s fence. The review of related literature claims that it is a threat to
democracy since, according to Congelosi (1999, p.94) “labeling suggests elitism”
and to Ballantine (1997, p.120), through homogenous student-sectioning, “we are
creating an elite intelligentsia.”
To balance views and emotions, one may consider the article below.
...yet if ability is considered regardless of other factors... we are

developing and utilizing needed resources…(Ballantine, 1997,
p.120) [--training and utilizing the most gifted members of our
society]
It is now on the part of the reader to decide whether homogenous student-
sectioning is beneficial to the students and is not in-conflict with our cherished
democratic principles of “equality and justice.”
p. 183
Chapter 5
Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations
A. Summary
This research is a descriptive, survey research. Its concern is on labeling
as a consequence of homogenous student-sectioning and its subsequent effects
on students’ aspiration and motivation for academic achievement, academic and
social self-concept, and social interactions.
Through interrelated theories of Labeling (Edwin Lemert), Distance and
Value (Georg Simmel), and Stratification (C. H. Cooley), the researcher was able
to formulate ten specific research problems.
To answer specific problems, the researcher has formulated
(operationalization) more specific questions (items) laid in on a five-page
questionnaire. This became the major data gathering tool for this research.
The respondents were (stratified-systematic) randomly selected among
senior morning shift students from the three highest and three lowest senior
sections of Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School SY 08-09. The data
gathering period was on January 5 to 9, 2009.
Responses were tabulated. Data were interpreted with reference to the
theoretical framework and ideas gained from the review of related literature. It
was on these analyses and interpretations were conclusions were drawn.
p. 184
B. Conclusions
1. On the profile of the student-respondents:
a. Majority of them were female but considerable percentages of subsample
populations were male.
b. Higher section students tended to be younger than lower section students.
c. On socioeconomic status, majority of the student-respondents were basically
poor, with annual family income ranging from Php 60,000-99,999. However,
lower section students were poorer than higher section students. Majority of
the student-respondents have five or less number of household members
(average size), considerable percentages have six or more. Despite poverty,
majority of the student-respondents were not working.
d. On academic profile, majority of the respondents spent ten years of study
since grade one, a small percentage of lower section student-respondents
spent eleven (or more) years. Majority of higher section student-respondents
have third year averages ranging from 80 to 89% while majority of lower
section student-respondents have third year averages ranging from 75-79%.
Majority of the student-respondents have no back subjects, while a small
percentage of lower section student-respondents do have. Majority of the
student respondents have spent two to four years at their respective status-
section. Majority of the student-respondents have not participated in any
school wide activities (indicated in this study) since first year. Data showed
that higher section students tended to have dominated the academic arena
while lower section students tended to have dominated the non-academic
p. 185
(more bodily activities) side inside and/or outside the school. Majority of the
student-respondents did not receive any awards during their study at
JCMPHS. However, further analysis revealed that higher section students
tended to receive achievements (awards) on academic and non academic
contests held inside and outside the school than lower section students (non
academic, outside the school).
2. Students at Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School were homogenously
sectioned. Previous grades (performance) were the basis in assigning
students to higher, middle (average), and lower sections. Homogenous
student-sectioning was chosen to raise the academic performance of
students through teaching them based on their (perceived) ability to learn and
comprehend lessons.
3. Expectations and attributions associated to higher and lower section students
were presented. Data proved that these expectations are existing and are
somewhat being used to describe higher and lower section students.
Expectations and attributions for higher section students convey positive
meanings unlike those for lower section students. This implies that higher
section students occupy a prestigious position in the student-hierarchy, unlike
lower section students (disadvantaged position).
4. Higher and lower section student-respondents tended to accept the section
they presently belong. It was found out that respondents of both subsample
population were respectively labeled based on the section-status they belong.
The labelers were specified. It was clear that expectations and attributions
p. 186
associated to higher and lower section students became labels through the
act of tagging. Higher section students tended to be labeled by the labelers
with positive, high expecting words, while lower section students tended to be
labeled with (mostly) negative, low expecting words. Data were consistent
that higher section students tended to accept the labels being tagged to them
(hence, were secondary deviants) while lower section students tended to be
indeterminate on their attitudes on the labels being tagged to them (hence,
were primary deviants). Further, higher section students tended to have
positive subjective academic self-concepts unlike lower section students
(indeterminate subjective academic self-concepts).
5. It was found out thin both higher and lower section students were aspiring for
academic achievement. Both were moderately being strengthened by their
respective labels to aspire for academic achievement.
6. Both higher and lower section students answered attainable as their
description of distance between them and academic achievement i.e. “not to
near yet not too far.” They perceive academic achievement as attainable
through rendering considerable effort for it.
7. In doing activities at school, the self-confidence of both higher and lower
section students tended to be moderately strengthened by the labels tagged
to them. Higher section students tended to be more studying hard than lower
section students. Higher section students tended to be more motivated for
academic achievement than lower section students
p. 187
8. Social-sphere of interactions:
a. Within the immediate social-sphere of interactions, labels do not largely affect
the choice of friends of higher and lower section students. Labels sometimes
function as unifiers among higher and lower section students of the same
section. Higher section students tended to view their condition as "unfair"
unlike lower section students (who responded "fair") when they were being
compared by their teachers with other higher and/or lower sections that they
were handling. Despite their feelings of unfairness when comparison
happens, higher section students tended to be in-cooperation with their
teachers while doing activities at school. Labels rarely affect the family
relationships of higher and lower section students.
b. Within the non-immediate social sphere, higher and lower section students
tended to be (always, moderately) in-competition with (other) higher section
students. Both higher and lower section students tended to be moderately in
competition with (other) lower section students (majority in the HSSsbp,
however, chose cooperation as their PSI with lower section students). Higher
and lower section students tended to be moderately in-competition with
middle section students, further more, lower section students also tended to
be moderately cooperating and moderately in-conflict with lower section
students. Higher section students tended to be in-cooperation with other
teachers and the school administration.
9. Higher and lower section students tended to be competitors (as their social
self-concepts) with the (other) higher, middle, and (other) lower section
p. 188
students. They tended to be co-operators with their teachers, other teachers,
and the school administration.
10. Higher section students tended to view homogenous student-sectioning and
the labeling that they were experiencing as moderately beneficial for their
personal development, lower section students, on the other hand, only felt its
being beneficial sometimes.
C. Recommendations
1. Positive and negative labels, expectations, and attributions were being used
(through tagging and acts of discrimination), and their effects were being
perpetuated, by the students, parents, and teachers boxed in a school
(education) system using homogenous student-sectioning45 (between-class
ability grouping, tracking). Thus, there is a need to re-evaluate (re-access) the
costs and benefits of the practice among students and teachers. Its efficacy
on raising academic performance of students should also be re-evaluated.
2. There are many (foreign) adherents of untracking students. They have offered
within-class ability grouping instead of tracking. The researcher thinks that it’s
time to evaluate, test, and indigenize46 their claims.
3. Sociologists, Psychologists, and Educators are being called to retest/validate
the theory to other public elementary and secondary schools in the country.
The researcher suggests that methodological and theoretical triangulation
should be used in doing so.
45
And those, as the theory claims, practicing mixtures of homogenous-heterogeneous student-
sectioning
46
if school administrators would think of adopting it
p. 189
References
Babbie, E. (2001). The Practice of Social Research, 9th ed., Stanford: Wadsworth
Thompson Learning Inc.
Ballantine, J. H. (1997). The Sociology of Education: A Systematic Analysis, 4th
ed., New Jersey: Printice Hall Inc.
Bernstein, D. A. & Nash, P. W. (999). Essentials of Psychology, Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company
Brinkerhoff, D. B., White, L. K., Ortega, S. T., & Weitz, R. (2002). Essentials of
Sociology, 5th ed., Belmont, California: Wadsworth-Thomson Learning
Inc.
Cangelosi, J. S. (1999). Classroom Management Strategies: Gaining and
Maintaining Students’ Cooperation, 2nd ed., Whiteplains, New York:
Longman Publishing Group.
Ceñidoza, M. A. (2004). Isang Pag-aaral sa mga Nabansagang Student at Risk
na mga Piling Estudyante sa Ikatlong Taon sa Vicente Madrigal National
High School sa Pantok, Binangonan, Rizal, Unpublished Undergraduate’s
Thesis, Polytechnic University of the Philippines, Manila.
Cole, S. (1976). The Sociological Method, 2nd ed., Chicago: Randy McNally
College Publishing Company.
Colon, S. M. (2002). General Sociology: A Simplified Approach, Quezon City:
National Book Store Inc.
Collins Student’s Dictionary. (2004). Glasgow, Great Britain: HarperCollins
Publishers.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed
Methods Approaches, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Crow, I. (2006). Inferential Statistics. In V. Jupps (Ed.), The Sage Dictionary of
Social Research Methods, London: SAGE Publications Ltd. pp. 147-149
Cruz, I. A. (1999, May 3). Quality Education as Key to Success, Philippine Daily
Inquirer, p. 8
Department of Education, Culture, and Sports (1995, October). Philosophy of
Education. Facts and Figures on Philippine Education, p.12
Doctolero, D. L. (1995). Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement in
Mathematics, Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Baguio Colleges Foundation,
Baguio City.
Duag, M. (2006). Sulong Batasan. Salindiwa: Ang Opisyal na Pahayagang
Pangkampus ng Mataas na Paaralan ng Batasan Hills, June-December
issue, V (2), pp. 10-11
Ember, C. R., & Ember, M. (1997). Anthropology, 8th ed., Singapore: Prentice-
Hall Inc.
Freire, P. (1985). The Politics of Education: Culture, Power, and Liberation,
translated by Donaldo Macedo, Massachusetts: Bergin & Garvey
Publisher Inc.
Geddes’ and Grossets’ Universal Webster’s Dictionary. (1993). New Lanark,
Scotland: Tormont Publications Inc.
p. 190
Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A Place Called School: Prospects for the Future, New
York: Mc Graw-Hill Inc.
Harris, M. (2001). Cultural Anthropology, 5th ed., Singapore: Pearson Education
Asia Pte. Ltd.
Hawkins, R. & Tiedeman, G. (1975). The Creation of Deviance: Interpersonal
and Organizational Determinants, Ohio: Charles E. Merril Publishing
Company and A. Bell and Howell Company.
Hernandez, J. R. (1995). An Assessment of Classroom Discipline Style among
Intermediate Teachers in public and private schools of Calamba, Laguna,
Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Philippine Normal University, Manila.
Hoge, R. D. (1979). The Teacher Expectation Effect: An Attempt at Clarification.
Retrieved, November 6, 2008, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ED183264
Horton, P. B., & Hunt, C. L. (1985). Sociology, Mandaluyong City: Mc Graw-Hill
International Book Company
Jimenez, J. F. (2007). Kakilala System, The Catalyst, 22 (1), p. 14
Johnson, A. L. (1986). Human Arrangements: An Introduction to Sociology,
Orlando, Florida: Harcourt Brace Jovanich Inc.
Labuguen, S. M. (1968). Problems of Stars and Isolates among grade six pupils
in Quirino Elementary School, Quezon City. Unpublished Master’s
Thesis, Philippine Normal College, Manila.
Light, D. Jr. & Keller, S. (1982). Sociology, New York: Alfred A. Knopf Inc.
Lumpkins, B., Parker, F., & Hall, H. (January-February, 1991). Instructional
Equity for Low Achievers in Elementary School Mathematics. The Journal
of Education Research, 83 (3), 135.
Mante, F. M. (1996). An Application of the Partial Credit Model of Item Response
Theory in Validating an Academic Self-Concept Scale for 3rd Yr. and 4th
Yr. High School Students, Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Philippine
Normal University, Manila.
Marger, M. N. (1999). Social Inequality: Patterns and Processes, Mountain View,
California: Mayfield Publishing Company.
Massey, G. (2000). Readings for Sociology, 3rd ed., New York: W. W. Norton &
Company, Inc.
Merton, R. K. (1957). Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe, IL: Free
Press, pp. 60-69. Retrieved, September 2008, from http:
//www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/2111/Merton/Social_Theory_
and_Social_Structure.html.
Myers, D. G. (1999). Social Psychology, 6th ed., New York: Mc Graw-Hill
Companies.
Mills, C. W. (2000). The Sociological Imagination. In G. Massey (Ed.), Readings
for Sociology (pp. 13-18), 3rd ed., New York: W.W. Norton and Company
Inc.
National Statistics Office (2002). Annual Poverty Indicators Survey (APIS) July
2002 Preliminary Results. Retrieved January 3, 2009, from
http://www.census.gov.ph/data/pressrelease/2003/ap0207ptx.html
National Statistics Office (2006). Table 2: Total and Average Annual Family
Income and Expenditure by Income Class and Region. Retrieved January
p. 191
3, 2009, from
http://www.census.gov.ph/data/sectordata/2006/fies0602r.htm
Panopio, I. S., & Raymundo, A. A. (2004). Sociology Focus on the Philippines, 4th
ed., Quezon City: KEN Inc.
Raywid, M. A. (1998). Separate Classes for the gifted? The Education Digest
Focus: Fighting Prejudice in Education; Public Schools and the Public
Mood, Michigan: Prakken Publications Inc, p. 69
Rosenthal, R. (1997). Interpersonal Expectancy Effects: A Forty Year
Perspective. Retrieved November 6, 2008, from
http://eric.ed.gov/ED415460
Reeve, J. M. (1996). Motivating Others: Nurturing Inner Motivational Resources,
Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon, A Simon and Shuster Company.
Ritzer, G. (2003). Sociological Theory and Its Classical Roots: The Basics, New
York: Mc Graw-Hill Publishing Company.
Ronquillo, A. A., Peralta, A. R., Salcedo, L. L., & Zaide, C. A., Jr. (1989). General
Sociology with Introduction to Anthropology, Manila: Goodwill Trading
Corporation, Inc.
Secord, P. F. & Backman, C. W. (1974). Social Psychology, 2nd ed., New York:
Mc Graw-Hill, Inc.
Sevilla, C. G., Ochave, J. A., Punsalan, T. G., Regala, B. P., & Uriarte, G. G.
(1992). Research Methods, Revised ed., Quezon City: Rex Book Store
Inc.
Slavin, R. E. (2003). Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice, 7th ed.,
Boston: Pearson Education Inc.
Smithson, J. R. (1971). Two Experiments in Homogeneous Sectioning of
Students in General Physics. Retrieved November 21, 2008, from
http://eric.ed.gov/EDO55838
Stryker, S. (2001). Traditional Symbolic Interactionism, Role Theory, and
Structural Symbolic Interactionism. In J. H. Turner (Ed.), Handbook of
Sociological Theory (pp. 211-232), New York: Springer Science
+Business Media, LLC. Retrieved October 16, 2008, from
http://www.scrib.com
Tauber, R. T. (1998). Good or Bad, What Teachers Expect from Students They
Generally Get!. ERIC Digest. Retrieved November 6, 2008, from
http://www.eric.ed.gov
____________ (2002). Chapter 2: Theories and theorizing. Retrieved October
19, 2008, from http://ww.scrib.com (under the name Fulcher)
Trojanowicz, R. C., & Morash, M. (1992). Juvenile Delinquency: Concepts and
Control, 5th ed., New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Tulio, D. B. (2000). Psychological, Anthropological, and Sociological Foundations
of Education, Mandaluyong City: National Book Store.
Walpole, R. E. (1974). Introduction to Statistics, 3rd ed., New York: Macmillan
Publishing Co., Inc.
Webb, R. B. & Sherman, R. R. (1989). Schooling and Society, 2nd ed., New York:
Mc Millan Publishing Company.
p. 192
Webster’s Elementary Dictionary: A Merriam-Webster. (1966). Springfield,
Massachusetts: G. & C. Merriam Co., Publishers.
Wikipedia. (n.d.) Pygmalion Effect. Retrieved November 6, 2008, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_effect
Wikipedia. (n.d.) Social Stigma. Retrieved October 9, 2008, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social Stigma
Young, P. V., & Schmid, C. F. (1966). Scientific Social Surveys and Research, 4th
ed., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Zulueta, F. M. & Parasol, M. S. (2004). General Psychology, Mandaluyong City:
National Book Store Inc.
p. 193
APPENDIX A
Letters and Permits
p. 194
APPENDIX B
Questionnaires
(Pretesting and Testing Period)
p. 195
APPENDIX C
The Sampling Frame
p. 196
Senior Sections at Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School SY 2008-2009
Senior Sections Student ~50%

population (sample)
1. Alexander 69 35
2. Napoleon 71 36
3. Constantine 61 27
4. Socrates --- ---
5. Copernicus --- ---
6. Marcus --- ---
7. Titus --- ---
8. Darius --- ---
9. Cyrus --- ---
10. Charlemagne --- ---
11. Plato --- ---
12. Columbus --- ---
13. Trajan --- ---
14. Antoninus 44 22
15. Gandhi 52 26
16. Hadrian 53 27
More or less fifty percent of students at sections Alexander, Napoleon,

and Constantine were given questionnaires and the chance to belong to the
study’s Higher Section Students subsample population. The same percentage of
students from sections Antoninus, Gandhi, and Hadrian were also given
questionnaires and the chance to belong to the study’s Lower Section Students
subsample population.
The study used the stratified systematic random sampling technique in
selecting respondents who would comprise the sample population. The list of
students below aided the researcher in doing this. (List updated on January 6,
2009).
Section ALEXANDER 13.Rosales, Joven

Ø Boys 14.Valdez, Lloyd Mark
1. Aboganda, Elpedio 15.Yaon, Alejandro
2. Burkett, Wilkins Ø Girls
3. Corpuz, Charjian 1. Abaldonado, Mary Grace
4. Damalerio, Zedrick 2. Aniana, Marilyn
5. Diega, Uriel 3. Antique, Michelle
6. Lozardo, Karl David 4. Bacarna, Loujesa
7. Martinez, Richard 5. Bancolita, Marjorie
8. Misolas, Augosto 6. Barcebal, Ivan Claire
9. Oavina, Jim Jhonald 7. Batistil, Maylene
10.Osabel, Aldrin 8. Bautista, Rolinda
11.Pasquin, Daniel 9. Bechayda, Ma. Louanne
12.Ronquillo, Michael 10. Belleza, Catherine
p. 197
11. Benosa, Donna Marie Section NAPOLEON
12. Besin, Maria Ø Boys
13. Cabuyao, Mila 1. Balosa, Erwin
14. Caiga, Ailene 2. Bautista, Arjhun
15. Candelaria, Crista Abegail 3. Cabreros, Christian Pol
16. Caoile, Jessa 4. Cabuquit, Arman
17. Castel, Rose Ann 5. Cariaga, Sonny Boy
18. Condevillamar, Jowena 6. Cuizon, Dexter
19. Dacanay, Glera Kassandra 7. Donato, Louie Jay
20. Daquioag, Mariel 8. Flores, John Mico
21. Esperas, Precious 9. Laudit, Ernesto Jr.
22. Farparan, Angelica Rose 10.Lope, Jayson
23. Felices, Cheska 11.Moreno, Jethro
24. Hiwatig, Wendel 12.Padro, Joseph
25. Huele, Ana Marie 13.Pellijera, Ghamel
26. Liwanag, Monica 14.Rubino, Juniven
27. Luengo, Kristine Joy 15.Sagum, Kevin
28. Macina, Joanne 16.Sapno, Joel
29. Mahilum, Lyka 17.Tamayo, Christian
30. Mandapat, Diana Lee 18.Vigo, Elimar
31. Mateo, Lazer Gloria Ø Girls
32. Mendoza, Jennifer 1. Acuyong, Joan Marie
33. Montecalvo, Girlie 2. Aguilar, Jessica
34. Olmedo, Aya Dimple 3. Albino, Chris
35. Perez, Christine Joy 4. Alcornoque, Jezzel
36. Perico, May Angela 5. Andoy, Irene
37. Pino, Manilyn 6. Araña, Mary Joy
38. Pleños, Marfe 7. Atienza, Mary May
39. Ritual, Ailen 8. Ayuban, Rhea Mae
40. Rodaje, Marvie 9. Bagunu, Kriselle
41. Sacbibit, Mary Grace 10.Balinguit, Angelyn
42. Saguid, Elizabeth 11.Bilbao, Carol
43. Salazar, Frences 12.Bongalosa, Suzette
44. Santiago, Analyn 13.Briones, Jovelyn
45. Santiago, Fleur Sadina 14.Cabangonay, Jessica
46. Sinaguinan, Merry Mia 15.Cabudbud, Alessandra
47. Socajel, Shiella May 16.Cabuquin, Joan
48. Somoza, Joy Marie 17.Capangyarihan, Carol
49. Sumaria, Jennifer 18.Codiñera, Sierra
50. Tambong, Charlene 19.Costuna, Mary Chelle
51. Tan, Glor Antonette 20.De Serra, Glaiza
52. Unay, Armielyn 21.De la Peña, Maila
53. Undecimo, Sheila Marie 22.Ducay, Cristy
54. Valencia, Lara 23.Empleo, Maria Rosalie
p. 198
24.Flores, Koryn Cassandra 12.Davao, Lloyd Stephen
25.Galan, Sunlight 13.Delos Santos, Jerico
26.Glasparil, Emily 14.Go, Jericson
27.Gracio, Ruth 15.Inocencio, Ariel
28.Gragasin, Jessa 16.Lasin, Mike
29.Horfilla, Maria Divina 17.La Torre, Shervil
30.Leona, Janeth 18.Limbaco, John Carlo
31.Ligutan, Maria Divina 19.Marcelino, Romnick
32.Lopez, Jessabel 20.Micmic, Jerico
33.Lorenzo, Bianca Mae 21.Mordigo, Mark Anthony
34.Mabini, Julie Ann 22.Obani, Kevin Roland
35.Maniquiz, Edelyn 23.Ocampo, Benedict Joseph
36.Mejia, Jayra Mae 24.Ondras, Robert
37.Montejo, Jen-jen 25.Pagulan, Dave Mark
38.Navarra, Lea 26.Padilla, Jorlan
39.Nazareno, Jovy Lane 27.Pelo, Emar
40.Noquera, Jocelyn 28.Rico, Angelito
41.Obregon, Honeylyn 29.Ramos, Michael
42.Oay, Fadella Mae 30.Rose, Richard
43.Oren, Faith Joy 31.Sabedoria, Ricky
44.Oxima, Lilibeth 32.Sopeña, Jimz
45.Perdigon, Razel Ø Girls
46.Persia, Iris 1. Acebuche, Jessica
47.Robles, Mary Rose 2. Acuzar, Meriam
48.Quasco, Remy 3. Adora, Rizza
49.Salundaguit, Jennifer 4. Adzuara, Regine
50.Santos, Jessa 5. Arquillo, Jean
51.Tagbalay, Claire 6. Baguilar, Regina Angela
52.Tiglao, Jenelyn 7. Blaza, Mary Grace
53.Tutu, Jazmin Estefanie 8. Buela, Regina
9. Duzon, Heidi
Section CONSTANTINE 10.Esmeralda, Julie Anne
Ø Boys 11.Espinosa, Elvie
1. Amoguis, Ramil 12.Ginoguin, Meraflor
2. Antiola, Richard 13.Giray, Ma. Claudine
3. Aragon, Dominador 14.Goylan, Iren
4. Areola, Leonard Bryan 15.Gumera, Jessa Kristine
5. Argus, Jerald 16.Jabido, Liezl
6. Ariola, Noriel 17.Lara, Mia Ringie
7. Asprec, Ricky 18.Leoro, Kimberly
8. Batido, Jeremiah 19.Lubangco, Rachelle
9. Bautista, Ryan Christopher 20.Manangan, Melanie
10.Bongcales, Justine 21.Masula, Mary Jane
11.Catugda, Philip 22. Matias, Richel
p. 199
23.Perez, Nickie Angelie 7. DeLos Santos J.
24.Robles, Juneta 8. DeLos Santos H.
25.Romero, Jilliane Rose 9. Dula
26.Sagmit, April Ann 10.Garcia
27.Saludares, Abegail 11.Gardose
28.San Juan, Melysen 12.Lagsa
29.Tamayo, Racquel 13.Macalma
14.Praxides
Section ANTONINUS 15.Rampas
Ø Boys 16.Rivero
1. Abliter 17.Tatel
2. Abrio
3. Angeles
4. Arellano Section GANDHI
5. Bo Ø Boys
6. Bongares 1. Austria, Farson
7. Cerbas 2. Corpuz, Ronjude
8. Cidro 3. Dacullo, Romero
9. Damasco 4. Dela Cerna, Gerry
10.Dela Cruz 5. Dotimas, James
11.Dela Vega 6. Felicen, Leocin
12.Esguerra 7. Florites, Brian
13.Estauifa 8. Ibuna, Rodelo
14.Fabellar 9. Malangis, Joemar
15.Fernandes 10.Mancera, Jhon Paul
16.Gala-Gala 11.Mando, Reynante
17.Gaviola 12.Manuel, Ramon Christopher
18.Mad 13.Pindos, Reynaldo
19.Mendoza 14.Pinagol, Jhake
20.Mosqueda 15.Ramos, Jerome
21.Ong 16.Rosales, Henry
22.Paligutan 17.Roxas, Jesper
23.Prietos 18.Regacho, Billy Joe
24.Pugado 19.Sabenorio, Marem
25.Tubice 20.Velez, Mark Anthony
26.Taer Ø Girls
27.Ynayan 1. Agcaoili, Sarah Jane
Ø Girls 2. Alidon, Ma. Luisa
1. Arceño 3. Alvarado, Mary Joy
2. Benlot 4. Amor, Leizl Ann
3. Bonzato 5. Bestudio, Monica
4. Brillantes 6. Bueno, Michelle
5. Cervantes 7. Chenilla, Rey-ann
6. Dautil 8. Delaliarte, Sherlyn
p. 200
9. Dormitorio, Berlyn 18.Palomer, Ramos Clinton
10.Flores, Anna 19.Reyes, Nonilon
11.Galit, Geraldine 20.Ritual, Aison
12.Ibuna, Vergenia 21.Rubas, Dickson
13.LIgan, Jennie Mae 22.Ramirez, Jake
14.Meña, Jennifer 23.Real, Bryan Jay
15.Moncada, Rocilda 24.Salvador, Morris
16.Mosqueda, Manielyn 25.Salubod, Roger
17.Offemaria, Fluorence 26.Salvame, Leobyneil
18.Pajarillo, Ma. Elena 27.Santiago, Richard Joel
19.Piosang, Gendelyn 28.Siega, Jerome
20.Ponelas, Ailyn 29.Sol, Roman
21.Radomes, Jesselyn 30.Tripoli, Marlo
22.Ramuya, Rochelle Ø Girls
23.Rivera, Maryann 1. Albelda, Janica
24.Sabaggala, Babylyn 2. Alvaro, Jelly
25.Sabio, Rijean 3. Baleros, Vicseah
26.Salibia, Jackilyn 4. Caballera, Aileen
27.Sauro, Jonnalyn 5. Donato, Joana
28.Sendico, Juliet 6. Esperida, Gladys
29.Taguinod, Mary Rose 7. Fernandez, Anna Liza
30.Valenzuela, Adelfa 8. Garcia, Pauline Ann
31.Vedrero, Paula Jean 9. Gonzales, Michelle
32.Villegas, Annaliza 10.Gracio, Mary Ann
11.Molina, Zeny
Section HADRIAN 12.Montaño, Mary Jane
Ø Boys 13.Orbong, Jennifer
1. Adula, Jaynill 14.Ramos, Ihala May
2. Aureada, Leo 15.Rogador, Ma. Irish
3. Binay, Revin 16.San Pedro, Jennilyn
4. Comighad, Kurt Van Dominic 17.Santos, Mary Diann
5. Cervantes, Rigor 18.Taladro, Jenalyn
6. Dela Cruz, Joemar 19.Torres, Reygene
7. Del Prado, Fidel 20.Tuazon, Jenalyn
8. Esquejo, Rubarb 21.Tablizo, Raquel
9. Fernandez, Joseph Jayson 22.Valcueba, Wernabeth
10.Gacia, Jacob 23.Rongcales, Jacelyn
11.Germones, Jayson
12.Gonzales, Frenz - - -Nothing follows - - -
13.Lopez, Jared Hope
14.Manahan, Ronnel
15.Mancho, John Christoffe
16.Margasiño, Mark Junry
17.Mancera, Jeffrey
p. 201
APPENDIX D
Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School
p. 202
JUSTICE CECILIA MUÑOZ PALMA HIGH SCHOOL
Vision
Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School is an educational institution

developing well-rounded individuals for the establishment of a self-reliant and
responsible community.
Mission
To provide relevant education for youth’s intellectual, psychological,

spiritual, and environmental awareness through responsive approaches.
Brief History
The school formally opened on July 7, 1987 as an annex of Lagro High

School, with Mrs. Sheridan G. Evangelista of the Social Studies Department
acting as the officer-in-charge. Regular classes started with 258 students and 7
regular permanent teachers who were assigned by Ms. Gutierrez, former
principal of Lagro High School, to Payatas Annex. Four classroom buildings were
built at Bicol Street, Brgy. Payatas, through the concerted efforts of the barangay
officials and civic spirited leaders residing in the community. In SY 1990-1991
Lagro High School-Payatas Annex became a complete high school.
It was during the administration of Quezon City Mayor Ismael Mathay III
when the local government funded the construction of a three-storey building for
the school, hence was named after him. Another one-storey building (containing
three classrooms) was constructed facing the Mathay building but was eventually
stopped by the DPWH. The school infrastructures are situated in a lot area
comprising more or less 15, 593 m2 strategically located at the intersection of
Manila Gravel Pit Road, Molave Street, and Narra Street, Barangay Payatas,
District II, Quezon City.
In SY 2000-2001, during the term of Mrs. Violeta Jordan as the Master
Teacher Officer-in-Charge, a four-storey building with 12 classrooms was
constructed through the generosity of former Dist. II Representative Dante Liban,
the Division of City Schools, and the DPWH. It was also in her term when
Payatas Annex became a pilot school in simplified hydroponics.
In April 2002, the annex became independent from Lagro High School. It
was named Payatas High School. The independence brought improvements on
school management and internal relations.
On July17, 2006, QC Ordinance No. 1698 S. 2006 renamed Payatas High
School with Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School in honor of the late S.C.
Justice Cecilia M. Palma. This happened during the administration of QC Mayor
Feliciano Belmonte. It was also in his administration when the local government
once more funded a four storey, 12-classroom-building facing the scenic La
Mesa Watershed.
p. 203
Republic of the Philippines
QUEZON CITY COUNCIL
Quezon City
16 th City Council
61th regular session
ORDINANCE NO. 1698, S-2006
(PO2006-119)
AN ORDINANCE RENAMING PAYATAS HIGH SCHOOL INTO

JUSTICE CECILIA MUÑOZ PALMA HIGH SCHOOL
Introduced by Councilors RAMON P. MEDALLA, ANTONIO E. INTON, JR.
WINSTON “Winnie” CASTELO, AIKO MELENDEX-JICKAIN, VOLTAIRE
GODOFREDO L LIBAN III, ERIC Z. MEDINA, ALLAN BUTCH FRANCISCO,
BERNADETTE HERRERA-DY, ELIZABETH A. DELARMENTE, VICTOR V.
FERRER, JR. FRANCISCO A. CALALAY, JR., ROMMEL R. ABESAMIS, JOSEPH P.
JUICO, JORGE B. BANAL, FRANZ S. PUMAREN, WENCEROM BENEDICT C.
LAGUMBAY, DANTE M. DE GUZMAN, JULIAN M.T. COSETENG, DIORELLA
MARIA SOTTO DELEON, EDCEL B. LAGMAN, JR. ALMA MONTILLA, JANET M.
MALAYA, RESITUTO BE MALANGEN, BAYANI HIPOL, XYRUS I. LANOT and
JUNIE MARIE L. CASTELO.
WHEREAS, streets, boulevards, parks, playgrounds, historical spots and other

places are so named to signify and perpetuate the nobility of personages or significance
of certain events.
WHEREAS, the scholastic record of Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma is worthy of
emulation of young students having been the high school valedictorian of St.
Scholastica’s College in 1931, Bachelor of Laws of the University of the Philippines in
1937, Passed the Bar Examination in 1937 as First Placer with the highest grade of
92.6%. Master of Laws of the University of Manila in 1947, Grantee of Scholarship of
Graduate Studies from the American Association of University Women from 1953 to
1954, Master of Laws of Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA in 1954;
WHEREAS, Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma was conferred Honoris Causa “Doctor
of Laws” by six (6) Universities, namely Centro Escolar University, March 23, 1974;
Angeles University, March 1977; Ewha Women’s University, September 30, 1978;
Philippine Women’s University, March 1987; University of the Philippines, April 2, 989;
and “Doctor in Humane Letters” by the Ateneo de Manila University, March 31, 1979;
De La Salle University, January 24, 1987; and St. Louie University, Baguio City in
March 1998;
WHEREAS, the Honorable Cecilia Palma was an exemplar of public service to
the country and to the people, having served to a heroic degree the Republic of the
Philippines for much of her life;
p. 204
WHEREAS, as a staunch advocate of the rule of law, Justice Cecilia Muñoz
Palma showed the highest moral courage when she dissented from the majority decision
of the Supreme Court in Martial Law Cases, giving life to the quote of St. Thomas
Moore, “ I am the King’s Good Servant but God’s First”;
WHEREAS, during the dark days of Martial Law, the revered former Supreme
Court Associate Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma stood out as a gallant voice in and out of
the courts who dared to challenge and criticize the Marcos regime’s disregard of
constitutional principles and rampant violation of human rights;
WHEREAS, after her retirement from the Supreme Court in 1978, she was active
in the “Parliament of the Streets” advocating the lifting of martial law and the return of a
Constitutional government and, in 1984 was elected to the Batasan Pambansa
representing Quezon City under her battle-cry “ One Marcos cannot stop us all”;
WHEREAS, Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma was instrumental in uniting the
opposition in 1985 for the presidential elections in 1986 and in dismantling the
dictatorship and military rule, culminating in the ouster of the dictator and the installation
of the Honorable Corazon C. Aquino as President, her role so aptly described by Fr.
Joaquin G. Bernas, S. J. as “Justice Palma is a precursor, the John the Baptist of the Cory
Aquino Administration”;
WHEREAS, the Honorable Cecilia Muñoz Palma was elected President of the
Constitutional Commission of 1986 and has earned the accolade of her colleagues in the
Constitutional Commission for her independence, integrity and courage in the course of
drafting the fundamental law of the land, now known as the 1987 Constitution;
WHEREAS, as the ripe age of 86 she accepted the appointment of President
Joseph E. Estrada to serve as Chairman and General Manager of the Philippine Charity
Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) for a year, endearing herself to the hundreds who benefited
from the humanitarian program of the PCSO;
WHEREAS, Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma has received hundreds of awards in
recognition of her unflinching fight for truth and justice and dedication of her career to
God, country and fellowmen, and was accorded the well-deserved honor of being
awarded “A WOMAN WHO MADE A DIFFERENCE” by the International Women’s
Federation joining other world leaders in its roster like former President Corazon C.
Aquino, former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, former United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights and Irish President Mary Robinson and Washington
Post Publisher, Katherine Graham;
WHEREAS, the moral courage and strong legal conviction of Justice Cecilia
Muñoz Palma has earned the respect not only of the Filipino people but the world
community and thus serve as a beacon of light to all the people thirsting for truth, justice,
freedom and the rule of law;
WHEREAS, it is only fitting to recognize Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma, for
remaining firm on her conviction to the last, and she should be remembered as a model of
independence, integrity, industry, and intelligence;
p. 205
WHEREAS, the changing of the name Payatas High School in honor of Justice
Cecilia Muñoz Palma is appropriate to perpetuate the memory of this great Filipino, a
champion who had upheld the cause of justice and truth.
NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN SESSION ASSEMBLED:
SECTION 1. Payatas High School in Quezon City is hereby renamed to Justice
CECILIA MUÑOZ PALMA HIGH SCHOOL in giving tribute to a woman of honor and
valor worthy of our collective respect and admiration then, now and hence.
SECTION 2. The Secretary of the Sanggunian should furnish a copy of this
ordinance to the Office of the President, Division of City Schools, and Department of
Education for their information and appropriate action.
SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its approval.
HERBERT M. BAUTISTA
Vice Mayor
Presiding Officer
ATTESTED: APPROVED: 26 of July 2006
EUGENIO V. JURILLA FELICIANO R. BELMONTE, JR.

City Secretary City Mayor
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that this Ordinance was APPROVED on Second Reading on July
17, 2006, was finally PASSED on Third/Final Reading by the City Council, under
Suspended Rules on the same date.
Copied verbatim from the marble land mark in front of SB Building

Prepared by John Abletis on January 17, 2009
p. 206
APPENDIX E
Gallery of Photos
p. 207
The school’s old name from 2002–2006 It was renamed on November 23, 2006
The school was renamed after Hon. S.C. This marble tablet as a land mark shows the
Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma by the local city ordinance declaring Justice Cecilia
government of Quezon City through Q.C. Muñoz Palma High School as the new
Ordinance No. 1698, S. 2006. name of Payatas High School.
The school’s main entrance gate leading to Mathay and Liban Hall.
p. 208
At left is the Mathay Building constructed during the term of former QC Mayor Ismael Mathay.
The unfinished building at right (also during his term) is planned to be renovated soon
At left is the Liban Building constructed through the generosity of former QC District II Rep. Atty.
Dante Liban. The vicinity of Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School is divided by Molave
Street. The picture at the right shows the newly constructed building of the school.
At right is the new SB Building constructed under QC Mayor Feliciano Belmonte’s

administration. At left is the school’s new canteen. Despite structural improvements, the school
still suffers from scarcity on class rooms and on other material resources. This school year (08-
09), to accommodate the large influx of elementary graduates entering as freshmen, the school
administration decided to divide the usual size of classrooms at Mathay Hall into halves. p. 209
Since JCMPHS is near the Payatas Dumpsite, one could notice that there are numerous
garbage dump trucks passing all day in front of the school. Also, in front of the school is a wall
which, behind it is the breath taking La Mesa Watershed (picture above).
Painted walls lighten the ambience of the place. These are painted by the students, various
NGOs and GOs, with the participation of some local residents. These wall paintings stretch until
they reach a street leading to the dumpsite. The paintings portray the life at Payatas as well as
the various hopes and dreams of the local residents regarding what they want their place to be.
Paintings showing cooperation and industrialization are common. These paintings allure the
researcher when he first visited the place. The experience was a very humbling one. It
generated meanings to reflect upon. Although he acted as a quantitative researcher, the
paintings reminded him of his qualitative nature.
Some of the senior student-respondents of

this study.
p. 210
APPENDIX F
Some Salindiwa school-newspaper articles
(Salindiwa is the official Filipino school-newspaper of
Batasan Hills National High School)
p. 211
APPENDIX G
The Researcher
p. 212
I graduated at Payatas A. Elementary School in 2001. It was
there where I was consistently being sectioned at Mahusay
(section 1). I was known as a poet and a singer then. I entered
Batasan Hills National High School when I was 12 years old. To
my surprise, I was put in section Magnolia (section 23). It’s when I
was a sophomore student when I was brought back to the higher
sections (Avogadro, section 3). The following year, I was
sectioned at Agate (section 2). At the end of that year, I was
voted to be the Vice President External of the Supreme Student
Council for SY 04-05. I spent my senior year at IV-Star (section 1) until I graduated in
2005. I entered college at PUP Mabini Campus as an SB Centrex Alumnus and a SYDP-
QC Gov. scholar. Presently, I am finishing a BS Sociology degree from the same
university, hoping to have my master’s degree soon, and be able to contribute to Filipino
Sociology for a just and humane society.
In Sociology as well as in other related Social Sciences, my interest falls within
the fields of Education, Sustainable Development, Community Development and
Community Organizing, Social Theory, Social Psychology, Philippine Culture, Ethnology,
and Social Anthropology.
Yet there is another excitement of discovery beckoning in his

investigations. It is not the excitement of coming upon the totally
unfamiliar, but rather the excitement of finding the familiar becoming
transformed in its meaning.
-Peter Berger (in Massey, 2000, p.10)
p. 213

Homogeneous Student-Sectioning, Homogenous Student-Sectioning, Sociology of Education, PUP

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Homogeneous Student-Sectioning, Homogenous Student-Sectioning, Sociology of Education, PUP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

In partial fulfilment of the requirements

John Nicer Abletis

This thesis entitled “Labeling as a consequence of Homogenous Student-

THESIS REVIEW PANEL

Approved by the panel of examiners on oral examination with a grade of

“He neither comes early nor late. He is always on time.”

Para sa lahat ng mga estudyante, naging estudyante, at magiging estudyante

Para sa mga guro, at gustong maging guro

Para sa mga Sosyolihista na may malalim na pagpapahalaga sa edukasyon

Ang pananaliksik na ito ay para sa inyo.

Mostly educated Filipinos experienced being sectioned homogenously

CHAPTER 1 THE PROBLEM

CHAPTER 2 THE REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

CHAPTER 3 THE METHODOLOGY

CHAPTER 4 PRESENTATION, ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATION

CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND

institutions of Bagong Silangan and Commonwealth. As a new school, Batasan

experienced scarcity both on educational/structural facilities and in the number of

administrative and technical personnel (especially teachers). Since then, the

school experienced an influx of students coming from nearby elementary schools

years, aggravating its condition on resource scarcity.

The researcher arrived at Batasan as a freshman student in June, 2001.

usual size of classrooms into halves, with each classroom containing

approximately sixty students in relation to more or less thirty chairs. Hence,

some of the “striking features” of the old Batasan scenario.

Reminiscing the old Batasan2 would entail the student-sectioning issue.

classifying students developed into stratification of students with consequences

Differences on material conditions were evident at that time; what has

sections and, consequently, to students belonging to those sections (i.e. the

labels higher section student and lower section student).

Such preliminary experience motivated the researcher to pursue a study

on student sectioning, even though its trend seems to be diminishing at Batasan.

also shared experiences on student-sectioning comparable to those he had.

Scant newspaper articles also suggest the like.

-Jeric F. Jimenez (2007, p. 14)

-Isagani A. Cruz (1999, p. 8)

Most educated Filipinos experienced being grouped into sections during

their schooling years. Student-sectioning is a common practice of schools,

whether public or private, with considerably large student population. It is mostly

part of every school’s educational-organizational management strategy to

effectively manage the schools limited personnel and material resources in

relation to rendering student services –the allocation of resources, student-

teacher ratio, student-book ratio, etc.

School Administrators usually decide whether the student-sectioning

strategy will be Homogenous or Heterogeneous, or a mixture of these.

Homogenous Student Sectioning, or Ability Grouping, basically implies the

capabilities in learning. On the contrary, Heterogeneous Student Sectioning

backgrounds, varied abilities and capabilities in learning, with different

inclinations and interests.

of the higher section-lower section dichotomy, with the higher(est) sections

composed of students having exceptional marks3 to the lower(est) sections

with their accompanying attributions and expectations that are traditionally 4

their aspirations, motivations, and social interactions inside the school.

It was curiosity which pushed the researcher to pursue the study.

affected) his theoretical construct is relative to student sectioning. Reviewing

Rosenthal, 1997), of Hoge (1979), Labuguen (1968), Doctolero (1995), and

Ceñidoza (2004) further strengthen the need to pursue a study regarding

student-sectioning since most of these researches were not primarily sociological

effects of labels, attributions, and expectations on the self-concepts, aspiration

and motivation for academic achievement, and social interactions of secondary

senior students banded into stratified sections.

This does not mean…that as sociologists, we need to divest ourselves of our