Topic 4: Social Stratification & Education
| l What is (formal) education for? l What is the influence of education on the individuals? l [Difference or Inequality?]Who are more likely to attain higher levels of educational achievement – class, gender and ethnicity – and why? Is it due to individuals’ innate differences (e.g. IQ or natural abilities), class background, and/ or other social factors? l Are IQ or “natural” abilities really natural? l Does education foster equality of opportunity? How to reduce class inequalities in education? |
- Education in Historical Perspective
- education =/= schooling
Western countries:
- Middle Ages – 19thC: schools (Latin grammar); apprenticeship; private tuition at home etc.
- End of 19thC: the institution of mass, universal schooling was established
- Second half of 20thC — 2 successive perspectives on the nature and purpose of education:
- (a) early postward decades: “equal opportunities (meritocracy)
- (b) 1980s & 1990s: “employability”
| Before the Second World War, education in the UK was, on the whole, unashamedly gender-biased and class-confirming … In contrast, post-war education was heralded as a ladder of opportunity for the working class. Equal opportunity in education was seen as the key to a more open society – a meritocracy in which people would move up or down the occupational hierarchy according to personal merit (merit = ability + effort). The education system would ensure that individuals were allocated by ability; being born into a humble home would be no barrier to success, and being born into a wealthy or powerful family would provide no cushion against failure … The dominant factor in the educational philosophy of the 1950s and 1960s was the widespread belief in the positive power of education … In the mid 1970s …(c)oncern for equal opportunities had given way to anxiety about standards and assessment (for the sake of the economy). {Extracted from Bilton et al. 2002, pp.265-266} |
- II. Functionalist Theory of Social Stratification & Education
In the 1950s and 1960s, the structural-functionalist account, with its liberal progressive optimism, underpinned the more general view of advanced industrial society: social inequalities would be progressively reduced and education would play a key role in facilitating this development.
Theoretical focus: social order
-functional integration of the whole society (division of labor) based on value consensus
- Durkheim (19thC):
- Schools transmit general social values that provide the basis for social solidarity
- Schools socialize individuals into respecting rules in general
- Schools teach individuals specific skills necessary for their future occupations, in a society based increasingly on the interdependence of specialized skills (a need for formal education that cannot be satisfied by the family in modern society)
- Parsons
- Social stratification is inevitable and desirable because it is necessary for:
(a) the coordination and integration of a specialized division of labor, &
(b) the achievement of collective goals based on shared values
- Common values (evaluation system) ® rank order
-e.g. traditional China: low value on money ® a status hierarchy with intellectuals ranked atop and business persons at the bottom (仕農工商)
-e.g. modern capitalist society: materialism ® capitalists as the upper class
- In industrial society, with specialized division of labor, some will specialize in administration, & others will follow their directives (® differences in power & status). Power is used to achieve collective goals (e.g. wealth in society)
- School:
– An agent of socialization; a bridge between the family & society (society in miniature)
– Universalistic standard (vs. particularistic standard in family) – meritocracy/ achievement
– Values instilled: (i) achievement, & (ii) equality of opportunity
– Function: selection of individuals for role allocation in society
2.3 Davis & Moore (1945)
Davis and Moore also saw education as a means of role allocation and linked the educational system more directly with the system of social stratification.
- Functional prerequisite (function needed for a system to survive & operate efficiently):
-e.g. effective role allocation & performance
- all roles be filled
- all roles be filled by those best able to perform them
- necessary training for the roles be provided
- the role be performed conscientiously
- Social stratification: a mechanism for insuring effective role allocation & performance
- ranking of functional importance of roles (e.g. doctor vs nurse)
- distribution of innate ability & talent among individuals
- time for training – sacrifice – be compensated by means of high reward
- high reward as inducement for conscientious performance of important roles
- Education « stratification (The education system is the ‘proving ground for ability and hence the selective agency for placing people in different statuses according to their capacities’.)
evidence: social mobility through education
Industrial society had a plurality of occupations requiring varying levels of skill, necessitated a sophisticated mechanism to select individuals according to their talents and train them for the jobs they could most effectively perform. Education therefore had a vital selection or allocative function.
III. Conflict Theories on Stratification & Education
Conflict theories highlight inequalities in society at large, wherein education is embedded.
3.1 Tumin’s Criticisms of Davies & Moore’s Theory
(1) difficulty with the concept & measurement of ‘functional importance’
(2) ignoring the influence of power on stratification (i.e. bargaining power of professional groups, occupational groups, classes etc.)
(3) training – sacrifice or self-development? how much compensation is necessary?
(4) questionable assumption about the measurement, requirement and distribution of talents
Other Studies: IQ, Class & Education
– popular assumption: intelligence (abstract reasoning ability) is the cause for educational achievement
– criticisms: IQ tests are biased in favor of the middle class & Western cultures – because they are largely constructed by & standardized upon their members (e.g. value on “speed”)
-cultural factors influence different social groups’ IQ test performance (e.g. fear of failure, lack of experience with timed tests, & distrust of the tester etc)
– Bowles & Gintis: differences in attainment between people with similar IQs – the cause is not IQ but the class position of the individual’s parents (usually, the higher one’s class origin, the higher one’s educational qualification – IQ is a consequence, not the cause, of duration of education.)
(5) social stratification (e.g. class), instead of motivating talented individuals, can act as a barrier to the motivation, recruitment, & realization of talent ( education)
[Research findings in Britain: the higher the social class, the higher the levels of educational achievement are likely to be]
(6) social stratification: divisive rather than integrative
3.2 Theory of Cultural Deprivation
-Low-income groups tend to suffer from cultural deprivation — i.e. being deficient or lacking in important skills, attitudes and values that are essential to high educational attainment
-an environment that is deficient not only in economic terms but also in cultural terms
-linguistic deprivation, experiential, cognitive and personality deficiencies, and a wide range of “substandard” attitudes, norms and values
- Compensatory education — additional educational provision for the culturally deprived (results of the programmes have been largely disappointing)
-criticism: It places the blame for failure on the students and their background, hence diverting attention from the deficiencies of the educational system.
3.2 Marxist Approach
| Superstructure | (non-economic institutions e.g. education, family) |
| Substructure | (economy i.e. production) |
- the substructure determines/ conditions/ influences the superstructure
- the superstructure serves to reproduce the substructure
3.3 Bowles & Gintis: correspondence theory (a mechanical application of Marxist approach)
Education: Reproducing the Capitalist System – through a ‘hidden curriculum’
[Hidden Curriculum – not the explicit content of lessons, but the implicit values, the form that teaching and learning take, and the way that schools are organized]
How? By providing capitalists with a workforce which has the personality, attitudes & values most useful to them e.g. a hardworking, docile, obedient, highly motivated, divided & fragmented workforce:
- A subservient workforce
(low grades ←→ creativity, aggressiveness & independence;
high grades ←→ consistency, perseverance, punctuality, dependability)
(ii) Acceptance of hierarchy
-schools being organized on a hierarchical principle of authority & control
(iii) Motivation of external rewards (e.g. qualification, wage)
- intrinsic satisfaction from study or work [my emphasis: competitiveness e.g. ranking]
(iv) Fragmentation of knowledge
-knowledge being fragmented and compartmentalized into different subjects with little connection among them – just like fragmentation of jobs or division of labor in factories and offices – knowledge of the whole process denied – easier to control
(v) Legitimation of inequality & illusion of equality of opportunity
3.4 Criticisms and Evaluation of Bowles & Gintis
[1] a one-sided tendency to see all aspects of the education system as oppressive
[2] overlooking non-class forms of inequality in education (e.g. gender)
[3] the relationship between education and its social context is more complicated (or less automatic) than what’s captured in the concept of ‘correspondence’
(3a) It’s unclear whether the capitalists actually intervene in education or that economic/employment considerations become predominant in educational policy. Moreover, are other non-economic factors involved in influencing the education system?
(3b) Their theory assumes that the hidden curriculum actually influences students; but in reality, students may not be just passive recipients of education – some may not conform to school rules or show respect for the authority of teachers.
[not paying enough attention to the micro level: class subculture & classroom interaction]
- Class Subculture Theory (Paul Willis: Learning to Labor)
- Approach: adopted a Marxist perspective but also focused on the micro dynamics in schools
- Observation: a counter-school culture (against a simple view of conformist students)
- Argument: the lower-class kids rejected school, which made them eventually suitable for the unskilled or semi-skilled manual workforce (Education indirectly & unintentionally prepared the workforce for the capitalist economy, resulting in their exploitation and subordination)*
*The working class kids know that the jobs available for them mostly require little skill, and that their studies at school will not help them prepare for their work. Even if they work hard at school, they could not get very high qualifications. At most, they might get a clerical job but the sacrifices for the little extra pay are not worthwhile.
3.6 Bourdieu: Cultural Capital Theory
-The education system is systematically biased towards the culture of the dominant classes; it places high value on the knowledge, manners and skills of the upper/middle class [cultural capital] & devalues those of the working class
- Cultural Capital
- (Marx) Capital forms the foundation of social life and defines one’s position within the social hierarchy. The more capital, the more power.
- Bourdieu extended Marx’ idea of capital to include non-economic (cultural) capital.
- Cultural capital includes not only external assets (e.g. qualifications) but also embodied cultural capital (e.g. accent, disposition, taste and knowledge etc.)
(e.g. knowledge about wine and paintings; English-speaking ability)
– Uneven distribution of cultural capital ßà family socialization among different classes. Children from the dominant classes have internalized the skills, knowledge & style during their pre-school years.
-Working-class failure is the fault, not of working-class culture, but of the education system
Dissertation: School Choice of Parents in the New Education Market: A Case Study of Aided-Turn-Direct Subsidy Scheme Schools in Hong Kong. Woo, Chak Kei Jacqueline. 2013. CUHK
Many industrialized regions have adopted an educational market operated according to the neoliberal market principles. One of the principles was choice (Ball, 1990: 60-61). In Hong Kong, the Direct Subsidy Scheme (DSS) was introduced to promote choice and a strong private school sector. After several revisions, the scheme has successfully attracted several “traditional” and “elite” government-aided schools to join… Pierre Bourdieu’s concepts on habitus, capital and field were applied to analyze the school choice practices… The major findings of this thesis include: a deep sense of uncertainties and risk triggered by government policies — particularly the school allocation system and the language policy of Medium of Instruction — have driven the parents to choose DSS schools; the exclusiveness of the community in aided-turn-DSS schools attracted parents; a sense of distinction has also driven these parents to apply for aided-turn-DSS schools for their children; parents that are engaged in choosing aided-turn-DSS schools are middle-class parents; choice practices of middle-class parents, supported by abundant cultural, social and economic capital, were strategic; cultural, social and economic capital, and the habitus of parents hold the key to success in admission to aided-turn-DSS schools; the habitus of the middle class parents and school administrators have shaped the field of the aided-turn-DSS schools, turning it into a sanctuary of the middle class, a social space with boundaries excluding the “others”; aided-turn-DSS schools provide their students and parents a sense of distinction; Brown’s notion of “parentocracy” — the “wealth” and “wishes” of parents have great impact on the success of the education of the students — is magnified in the school choice process of the aided-turn-DSS schools; a consequence of the introduction of the DSS in the field of school choice is middle-class reproduction. This analysis suggested that DSS as a choice policy has provided the means to the privileged, middle-class parents to position themselves and to maximize their chance of succeeding school choice for their children. Among the various types of DSS schools, the aided-turn-DSS schools are the main sites for such middle-class practices in Hong Kong, resulting in social closure and excluding poor families from accessing these schools. |
- IV. Interactionist Perspective
Instead of looking at structural and institutional forces outside the individual, interactionists focus on the micro social context, including the educational processes, people’s adaptation, and their interaction with other people in the school, e.g. teachers and classmates.
Focus: the processes within the education system (the details of day-to-day life in school) – the development of self-image and self-conception through social interaction, which results in different levels of achievement among different students
- Looking-Glass Theory of the Self
- Labelling and the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
Example: banding and streaming
Woods:
-Divergent modes of adaptation to the school among students — for your information only
(1) Ingratiation (identifying with teachers and seeking to earn their favor)
(2) Compliance (conforming)
(3) Opportunism (fluctuating between seeking approval from teachers & from peers)
(4) Ritualists (following rules but not concerned about academic success)
(5) Retreatist (rejecting goals and means by the school e.g. daydreaming in class)
(6) Colonization (indifference to academic success but will hide their deviance)
(7) Intrasigence (indifference to academic success but may not hide their deviance
(8) Rebellion (pursuing other goals and means e.g. dropping out of school)
**********************************************************************************
| Different Sociological, Political & Philosophical Perspectives on Education
Ø Functionalist Perspective — effective role allocation through education based on value consensus
Ø Liberal Perspective — the promotion of the well-being of the individual
Ø Social Democratic Perspective — equality of opportunity in education (but disagreeing with functionalists that education already provides genuine equality of opportunity)
Ø Radical/ Marxist Perspective — addressing more fundamental inequalities in society
Ø New Right Perspective — market systems as a way of distributing resources (based on theories derived from economics); concerned more about the needs of the economy than about equal opportunity
|
Food for Thought: Educational Inequalities in Hong Kong
Examples of Institutional Mechanism:
- the “principle of vicinity” in school places allocation
- avoid using children’s ability as the admission criteria
- considerations of the rights to choose schools and the rights to choose pupils as well as the proportion of discretionary places and centrally allocated places
- direct subsidy scheme (see above, by J. Woo)