SOSC185/A.
Ku
Topic 5: 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 “natural” abilities (such as IQ) really natural?
l Does education foster equality of opportunity? How to reduce class inequalities in education?
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 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
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
SOSC185/A.Ku
2.2 Parsons
l Social stratification is inevitable and desirable because it is necessary for:
(a) the coordination and integration of a specialized division of labor, and
(b) the achievement of collective goals based on shared values.
l Common values (evaluation system) ® rank order
-e.g. traditional China: low value on money ® a status hierarchy with intellectuals ranked
atop and businesspersons at the bottom (仕農工商)
-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, and 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
- 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.
l Functional prerequisite (function needed for a system to survive & operate efficiently):
-e.g. 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 insuring 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.
2
SOSC185/A.Ku
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—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 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
SOSC185/A.Ku
3.3 Marxist Approach
Superstructure (non-economic institutions e.g. education, family)
Substructure (economy i.e. production)
l the substructure determines/ conditions/ influences the superstructure
l the superstructure serves to reproduce the substructure
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
3.5 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 directly 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 students are passively influenced by the hidden curriculum.
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
SOSC185/A.Ku
3.6 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.
3.7 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 extends 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
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.
5
SOSC185/A.Ku
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
**********************************************************************************
Educational Inequalities in Hong Kong
Examples of Institutional Mechanism:
Ø the “principle of vicinity” in school places allocation
Ø avoid using children’s ability as the admission criteria
Ø 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
Ø direct subsidy scheme (see above, by J. Woo)
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
