SOSC1850/Fall2023

Topic 5: 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, 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?

I. Education in Historical Perspective

l education =/= schooling

Western countries:
Ø Middle Ages – 19thC: schools (Latin grammar); apprenticeship; private tuition at home etc.

Ø End of 19thC: the institution of mass, universal schooling was established

Ø Second half of 20thC --- 2 successive perspectives on the nature and purpose of education:
l (a) early postwar decades: “equal opportunities (meritocracy)
l (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 Perspective of Social Stratification & Education

Theoretical focus: social order

• functional integration of the whole society based on value consensus

Functionalist concerns:
• How do societies make sure children learn to follow rules?
• How do societies make sure children have the skills we want them to have?

2.1 Durkheim (19thC):

l Schools transmit general social values that provide the basis for social solidarity
l Schools socialize individuals into respecting rules in general
l 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)

1
SOSC1850/Fall2023

2.2 Parsons

l Social stratification is inevitable and desirable

l 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
e.g. modern capitalist society: materialism ® capitalists as the upper class

l 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)

l 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
- Selection of individuals for role allocation in society

2.3 Davis & Moore

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.

l Functional prerequisite (function needed for a system to survive & operate efficiently):
effective role allocation & performance

² all roles be filled

² all roles be filled by those best able to perform them
² necessary training for the roles be provided
² the role be performed conscientiously

l Social stratification: a mechanism for ensuring effective role allocation & performance

² ranking of functional importance of roles (e.g. doctor vs nurse)

² distribution of innate ability & talent among individuals
² time for training - sacrifice - be compensated by means of high reward
² high reward as inducement for conscientious performance of important roles

l 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 Perspectives on Social Stratification & Education

2
SOSC1850/Fall2023

Conflict perspectives 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 – 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, etc)

- Bowles & Gintis:

• differences in attainment between people with similar IQs
• the cause for differential attainment: 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 (materially deprived) tend to suffer from cultural deprivation---deficient in

important skills, attitudes & values essential to high educational attainment

-linguistic deprivation, experiential, cognitive and personality deficiencies, and a wide range of
“substandard” attitudes, norms and values

Research on verbal code

• working-class: restricted code
• middle-class: elaborate code

• 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
SOSC1850/Fall2023

3.3 Marxist Perspective

Superstructure (non-economic institutions e.g. education, family)

Economic base (economy i.e. production)

l the economic base determines/ conditions/ influences the superstructure

l the superstructure serves to reproduce the economic base
l some groups benefit more than others from education

3.4 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:

(i) 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 by external rewards (e.g. qualification, wage)

vs. 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

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’

(a) 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?

(b) 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]

4
SOSC1850/Fall2023

3.5 Class Subculture Theory (Paul Willis: Learning to Labor)

Ø Approach: adopted a Marxist perspective but also focused on the micro dynamics in schools
Ø Observation: a counter-school culture (against a simple view of conformist students)
Ø 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
l (Marx) Capital forms the foundation of social life and defines one’s position within the social
hierarchy. The more capital, the more power.
l Bourdieu extended Marx’ idea of capital to include non-economic (cultural) capital.
l 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

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)—e.g.
how, through social interaction, the development of self-image and self-conception gives rise to:

• a variety of student subcultures (e.g. compliance, opportunism, ritualism, & rebellion etc), &
• different levels of achievement among different students

Labelling and the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

Example: banding and streaming