School has become the planned process which tools man for a planned world, the principal tool to trap man in man's trap. It is supposed to shape each man to an adequate level for playing a part in this world game. Inexorably we cultivate, treat, produce and school the world out of existence. (Illich 1971)
We are consuming education at a more rapid rate than at any time since we started counting degrees, and families are going further and further into debt to fund education for children..
No matter what type of education we consume, there is no guarantee that we have actually learned it, despite tests passed and degrees earned.. The assumption that people become good citizens, or well rounded individuals, simply by passing through a professionalized school system is a false assumption.
Ellul, forty-three years ago, said: "education no longer has a humanist end or any value in itself; it has only one goal, to create technicians." We are in the midst of this change in the relationship between society and school, one in which the idea of "good citizen" now merely means an employed person who has been certified by the schools as competent.
However, educators, government, and businesses are making it more difficult for non-qualified people to get jobs despite evidence that alternatives to qualifications not only work, but are more cost-effective than additional years spent in further education. The emphasis the government puts on children to gain qualifications for a job, is so bad that with in the next ten years you will need a degree to work in McDonalds!
Justice and Equality in Schooling
Education has been a predominant social institution in Britain since as early as 1300AD, when 100 English towns were known to have schools; although it wasn’t until 1850 when the introduction of schooling for girls was established. (Microsoft Encarta 2002) The government abolished school fees up to the age of 10, theoretically establishing equality within society and gradually the process of schooling has been searching for a sense of equality. (Microsoft Encarta 2002) The creation of the Board of Education attempts to improve the standard of living for people of poorer backgrounds; educating them is their step into a brighter future. However, a fundamental change in education didn’t occur until 1988, whereby a national curriculum was introduced, in an attempt to give every school a fair chance in cultivating pupils. (Giddens, 1993) Inequality within schools is not disputable among most sociologists, the consequence of social origins; ethnicity, culture and gender all have significant values on the attainment in schools. To provide justice and equality has been a prevalent issue for governments over the centuries; affirmative action is not a new phenomena, education needs to be continually adapting to the environment in which we live in.
Pioneering research from Durkheim saw education as an essential socialising agency, maintaining social control and order. Parsons claimed education was a bridge from family to the wider world. (Letts, 2001) In contrast to the functionalist theory, Marxism took a new perspective on the school environment; who argued that education is a function in which to maintain class inequalities in wealth and power. (Giddens, 1993) The reproduction of a subservient workforce, which respects authoritarian procedures, implies the capitalist society has higher attainment in schools to repress the working class into unskilled labour, this is an example of “cultural reproduction.”(Giddens, 1993: 438) The role of education thus is created through the means of the hidden curriculum. (Giddens, 1993: 437)
Bourdieu, an additional Marxist thinker has argued a notion that linguistic capital is a particular influence for improved attainment within schooling. The cultural origins obtained from primary socialisation can assist or hinder children in educational achievement. Hence “the instrument of communication” (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1997: 73) is considered greater among those from middle class origins, than those of poorer linguistic backgrounds; which are often the working class. It is not simply the performance of students, which influences scores in language tests but their “previous training”. (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1997: 72) It is the social origins, which predetermine “educational destiny” (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1997: 80) and “Class ethos” is considered when eliminating the weaker candidates of educational achievement. (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1997: 80) 62% of those in the higher streams of Hargreves secondary modern boys’ school were of a non-manual or skilled manual labour heritage, in comparison to 16% from unskilled manual families. (Becker, 1977: 108/110) Bernstein illuminates an extension on the theory of linguistic and cultural deprivation; his research directed him into discovering evidence to assess the language barriers between primarily middle class teachers and those pupils who were of lower social status. Teachers are often from sophisticated social backgrounds therefore use a more complex and “elaborated speech code” which is incomprehensible to those working classes with “restricted speech codes.” (Giddens, 1993: 434) This is an essential factor in the learning of school pupils if they are unable to interact with teachers and communicate sufficiently they are consequently disadvantaged.
According to Marxist theorists, processes such as labelling and streaming in schools are created to reproduce conformist attitudes of the working class. Middle class pupils are seen as ideal and therefore other pupils are disadvantaged; the application of negative and positive labels result in a self-fulfilling prophecy, as pupils come to believe the labels they have been given. (Giddens, 1993) Hargreaves’ research suggests that the “cultural clash”(Hargreaves, 1967: 83) between pupils and teachers has a direct impact on teacher streaming. Despite the increasing number of working class teachers who have been trained, in order to introduce a system of equality; research shows that they too aspire to those of different classes to themselves and promote the middle class values. Hargreaves notes that bias’ teachers have for those in top streams, which are chiefly middle class students, mean they are able to gain the most competent teachers. (Hargreaves, 1967) Thus maintaining the consciousness of their superiority and highlighting the preferential treatment towards those in the established upper and middle classes.
Willis’ ‘Learning to Labour’ case study opposed the above; he argued that other sociologists overstate the extent to which pupils are influenced by teacher labels. (Willis, 1977) Therefore inequality is not because the victims are underprivileged, they merely reject the values that society has concluded as ‘norms’: therefore trying to create equality would not serve in promoting justice, as it is a subculture created by themselves. His study on working class lads, demonstrates resisting the school culture to create their own ‘superior’ subculture and group solidarity. “The lads” have a counter school culture, which possesses a number of characteristics to distinguish themselves from the “ear’oles’” and symbolises the “struggle over authority”. (Willis, 1977: 11/29) These features include: sexual attractiveness by means of fashionable clothes, smoking, and drinking. (Willis, 1977) Some parents of ‘the lads’ “share their sons view of the situation” which emphasises the educational failure within many classes. (Willis, 1977: 21) As the parents of these working class children have lost faith in schooling they are unlikely to reinforce rules, or attend school meetings, they are inclined to dismiss any action the schools take and without any support from the homes of the disruptive children the school finds it difficult to control ‘the lads’.
In conjunction with Class inequalities, Ethnicity and Gender are two contemporary issues concerning inequality growing in interest among sociologists. The cultural deprivation of the ‘underclass’, mainly black single parents, who are not committed to mainstream values, means they are disadvantaged in education. (Murray, 1990) Their ethnic background is somewhat different from those white middle class teachers who are in majority, controlling the educational system. Attempts are now being introduced to supply a variety of teachers from a multitude of ethnic origins in order to identify with pupils and to introduce justice into a controversial system. Material deprivation of black communities can be a contributing factor to inequality. Those people who are unable to provide computers, books and a quiet study area are unavoidably going to underachieve. Unfortunately due to schools having a system of catchment areas it is often the good schools that have surrounding environments of affluent people and high mortgages; a bitter conclusion for entering a reputable school area. It is due to the locality of many black communities, who are often working class, which initiates the teacher labels imposed upon them from the beginning.
Explanations for the achievement of girls in education have varied over the last few decades, with female liberation girls have began to flourish in education. It was argued that female underachievement was the main concern for those in the 1980’s however recent findings suggest that women are out performing men. It has now been suggested that female underachievement has been grossly exaggerated due to the pressure for staying at home, females were not considered to be career ambitious. It could be argued that with means of affirmative action more female teachers have been introduced, increasing opportunities for women and changing attitudes towards femininity. Girls are now out performing the men in specific subjects; a result of equity but has equity for girls now disadvantaged the boys? Sociologists claim the fault lies with the educational system, it is claimed that the low expectations of boys and the acceptance of “laddish” behaviour emphasises the culture of low achievement. Sexual discrimination policies as a means of affirmative action are an issue that is widespread throughout Europe. In Norway there is a clear policy, which instructs schools that “textbooks and other teaching materials shall not discriminate against either sex.” (Bryne, 1983: 101) Despite this class and ethnicity are still prevalent factors in inequality in comparison to gender: working class girls do outperform working class boys but middle class boys still outperform working class girls.
Affirmative action is the positive influences new policies have on the inequalities within education. Equality is thus defined as “the condition of being equal in dignity, privileges and power”. Equity however is “the quality of being equal or fair; impartiality.” (Bryne, 1983: 101) Equality is therefore what we mean to achieve but through equity we provide it. A system of reverse discrimination is in place in the USA, but at the university of Washington, in 1971 a Jewish man was rejected, who if had been of another ethnic minority would have been accepted with grades under the cut-off level. (Duckworth, 1977) This is an attempt to allow those who have fewer opportunities earlier in life to have the possibilities of a prosperous future. But who decides which ethnic minorities are worthy of positive discrimination? If intelligence tests are an unfair representation of the population of young adults seeking to further their education, how are we to judge? If we don’t accept those of black origins into the legal universities, how are we ever going to achieve equality in representing black lawyers and the black communities? (Hargreaves, 1967) Within our society these issues are becoming more popular, universities are contemplating whether or not to take into account income, social background, and locality when deciding on places. Higher education is undergoing a system of dramatic reorganisation “dictated both by administrative measures and by social demands.” (Jean Francois Lyotard, 1984: 50) It is an obvious solution to establish variety within the complex system of education in order to cater for demands of varied social origins, but in the interests of justice are the problems merely going to change? The growing concern among private schools within the UK, is that for those who are offered differential treatment, because of their deprived educational or social background there are going to be other people who sacrifice their position in universities. It is possible to implicate greater fees for education for those who can afford it to fund those from privileged backgrounds. This is in order to search for equity within schools, but not equality. How must we provide a safe balance between advantaging those who have experienced underprivileged upbringings by not disadvantaging those who have had the benefits of social privilege?
Contemporary problems within schools have key distinctions with those of centuries ago, which leads us to wonder if it is at all possible to provide a flawless educational system. Efforts have been made in order to reduce in equality, but as evidence suggests it has merely the beginning. Scholarship systems of education and improving grants for people from deprived neighbourhoods are not enough to reduce inequality. Justice is difficult to generate when our social environment is littered with inequalities. Therefore reproducing an unblemished education system based on equality and justice is an unrealistic outcome for contemporary education. Visions for the future are hopeful but will the education system ever really be free of prejudice?
Bibliography
Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia Standard 2002
Giddens A, 1993 Sociology, polity press in association with Blackwell publishers ed.2
Letts, 2001 Sociology, Letts education limited, London
Bourdieu P and Passeron JC, 1997, Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture, Sage
Becker H S Social Class Variations in the Teacher-pupil relationship, in Cosin et al, 1997 School and society: A reader.
Hargreaves, D 1967, Social relations in a Secondary School
Willis P 1977, Learning to Labour: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs, London Saxon House.
Murray C 1990, The Emerging British Underclass, London: Institution of Economic affairs.
Bryne E, 1983 Equity or Equality in Arnot M Race and Gender, Pergamon Press
Dworkin R, 1977 ‘Reverse Discrimination’ in his Taking Rights Seriously’ Duckworth
Lyotard J F, 1984 The Postmodern Condition University of Mlnnesota
PORTFOLIO OF EVIDENCE
Social justice is a latent social form within capitalist society that cannot attain real existence. As sustainable social justice is impossible on the basis of capitalist social forms, the drive to create social justice in capitalist society - fired by the anger of shocking social inequality - pushes at the boundaries of capitalist social relations, and against the limits of capital itself. The struggle for social justice in capitalist society is, therefore, an aspect of a struggle for a form of life where social justice is possible: communism. Communism is '... not a state of affairs which is to be established ... [but is] ... the real movement which abolishes the present state of things' (Marx and Engels, 1846, p.57 - original emphases). Struggles for educational and labour market equality are necessarily linked to the struggle against the social force that oppresses us all: capital. There are not two separate struggles: one form of struggle against inequalities within capitalism, on the one hand; and, then against capital itself - as a social force flowing through social relations - on the other. There is only one fight, but the enemy - capital - is everywhere; we exist within its social universe, after all. There is no hiding place; it is even within us as alien social force (Rikowski, 1999a-b). There are no 'externalities' involved, and hence there is no 'inside' either. Capital as the expansion of value increasingly becomes all that there is - on an historically progressive scale within its own social universe. Capital deepens as social force within its own universe at the same time as the substance of this universe (value) expands (Rikowski, 1999b).
Rikowski, G. (1999b) Education, Capital and the Transhuman, in: D. Hill, P. McLaren, M. Cole & G. Rikowski (eds) Postmodernism in Educational Theory: Education and the Politics of Human Resistance (London: the Tufnell Press).
The guarantee of education is essential in a civilized society. All Americans should benefit from the opportunity to prepare for a successful future. But many do not. For many students, their years of schooling amount to little more than a waste of time and energy. For some, the experience is even worse, degrading, demoralizing, destructive.
Some complain that tax dollars are being wasted on teaching methods that don’t work; some object to subject matter that does not conform to their belief systems; some simply feel that students are not learning what they need to know. Parents who are dissatisfied with the public school system may be able to place their children in private or parochial schools, but although the atmosphere and quality of teaching may differ, the curriculum is usually very similar, since all schools must meet certain criteria for accreditation. For the majority of families that cannot afford tutors and cannot manage to home-school their children, there are simply not many choices, below the college level, in education.
If public schools are failing our children, they are doing so under the direction of professional educators and educational administrators, with a fair amount of input from parents and community groups. To the extent that our high school graduates are illiterate or ill-prepared, they have become that way because of the incompetence or lack of foresight of the adults who oversee their schooling. In such a massive bureaucracy as the public school system, with administrators who often have little awareness of the world outside of their own communities, and teachers with too little time to address the individual needs of students, truly valuable and forward-looking changes are hard to implement.
By branding as failures students whose backgrounds, personalities, or talents do not conform with the established curriculum, schools hamper those students’ chances of making successful use of the talents they do possess.
Fails to prepare students. By teaching irrelevant information, or teaching relevant information at a time when the information cannot be practiced and used in "real life", graduates emerge with no clear understanding of what knowledge will be important or useful to them in the future.
Creates a society of non-readers and non-learners. Because primary and secondary education is compulsory, it is seen as undesirable, something which one must be forced to endure. In the public school experience, students learn to do the least amount of work which will earn an acceptable grade. This attitude often lasts a lifetime.
Discourages creative or alternative intelligence. Because of grading systems, examination of students is generally confined to the most easily measurable kinds of testing. School teaches students to develop a "multiple choice mentality," which may handicap their ability to think "outside the box" and explore new options in decision-making.
Deprives students of the opportunity to explore their own preferences, values and options. In our school system, students are passive recipients of what others have decided to teach them. Too often, they graduate with no confidence, self-motivation or self-worth, for they have almost never been permitted to exercise their own judgment, even in deciding their own futures. It is not uncommon for recent graduates to refuse to make necessary decisions in their lives because they think they are not supposed to!
