To what extent is the Irish Education system meritocratic?

University Degree Education and Teaching

In his book ‘Sociology’, Anthony Giddens defines meritocracy as a system where “rewards go naturally to those who are best able to ‘perform’ and achieve” The purpose of this essay is to find out if the Irish education system is meritocratic and if so to what extent. In order for us to do this, we must be able to properly evaluate the Irish education system. It is important for us to look at the theories that could be used to analysis the system. In their book ‘A Sociology of Ireland’, Hillary Trovey and Perry Share list a number of theoretical bases for the study of education. Some of these are; feminist analysis, rationalization and interactionalist approach. However for the purpose of this essay it s important for us to only look at the theoretical bases, which believe that education systems are meritocratic.

The functionalist view, as described by Trovey and Share, is “based upon the notion of meritocracy: it functions to distribute jobs and social positions to individuals based on their capacity, abilities and performance”. This description of the functionalist view is furthered be Patrick Clancy when he stated in his paper ‘Socialisation, Selection and Reproduction in Education’ that “the functionalist analysis suggests that the school’s commitment to meritocratic principles becomes the essential mechanism by which our society accepts the principle of differential rewards”.

It is indicated in both texts that this system is seen as being fair by all those involved in it, as as Clancy put it, “ both the winners- the high achievers- and the losers- the low achievers- will see the system as equitable since status is achieved in a situation where all seem to have an equal chance”.

However not all theories agree that all those in society have an equal chance at education. The Marxist view takes the standpoint that the system is meritocratic, but that there is a class divide within education, i.e. that those who can afford to pay for it (the bourgeoisie) will always remain at the top and achieve the best. This is probably best stated by Trovey and Share when they wrote “The Marxist approach focuses on how the education system operates as an institution for the creation and transmission of social inequality and the maintenance of the class system…through the overt activities of reward and punishment”.

This theory also puts forward the possibility that schools claim to be meritocratic in order to convince people that “people in high status positions deserve their position”, and in this way there is a hidden curriculum with underlying values. Marx believed that in this way the bourgeoisie succeed in keeping the proletariat quiet and suppressing a revolution.

Another theoretical bases, which takes the approach that education systems are meritocratic, is the neo-Weberian view. Trovey and Share quote Drudy and Lynch as having stated that the neo-Weberian approach “ draws our attention to concepts such as power, determination and authority; to the conflict over economic resources and rewards; to the competition for status and prestige; to the struggle for control; and to the role of bargaining, negotiation and compromise”. This ‘competition for status and prestige’ and ‘the struggle for control’ can be seem as being influenced by meritocracy by the fact that in order for competition to work it is necessary for incentives and rewards, be offered to those competing.

However this bases differs from the previous two in the manner that it states that access to this knowledge is scarce and that it is a resource that individuals and groups can access to varying degrees. The functionalist approach believes that all people have equal access to education, while the Marxist theory takes this to the other extreme, believing that there is a large class divide in the education system between those who can afford to pay for it and those who cannot.

While each of these theoretical bases differs in some manner or other, they are similar ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

While each of these theoretical bases differs in some manner or other, they are similar through the fact that each takes the view that in some way or other the education system is meritocratic. In a number of ways the Irish Education system can be seen through these different theoretical bases. Each applies in different ways, but what is in question here is to what extent is meritocracy seen in the Irish education system? Each of these theories also has a different level of meritocracy within them. And so by finding which is the most appropriate we will be able to see to what extent the system is meritocratic. But first we must look at the education system.

Each of the above theoretical bases connected with meritocracy in education have the common belief that those who achieve greatest will have the higher positions in society. This is highlighted in the Irish education system through the way in which pupils compete for college places. The points system forces pupils to work to the best of their abilities and rewards them with places in colleges which can lead them to a good job and high status in society. The equation put forward by Drudy and Lynch accurately describes this:

“IQ + effort = merit”

While the marking scheme and assessment of each pupil under the points system is equal the resources and facilities available to each student are not. This can be seen in Ireland in the large number of private schools and institutions. These private schools charge high fees in order to provide their pupils with the best quality schooling. This may be through better facilities or the hiring of extra teachers in order to reduce class sizes or help students in individual areas. Unfortunately in order to be able to attend these schools you must either be able to pay the fees or else achieve high results in a scholarship exam. These scholarship and entrance exams are an example of how the education system is meritocratic as it provides the reward of resources and facilities to those that have the ability to achieve highly.

These private schools and institutions also further competition amongst pupils under the points system, by providing facilities such as, as Clancy put it, ‘cram courses’. These ‘cram courses’ help pupils to achieve higher grades in their chosen subjects. This means that they could gain more Leaving Certificate Honors then another pupil who did not attend such classes or courses. Drudy and Lynch back this connection between wealth/position in society and educational attainment, in their book ‘A Sociology of Ireland’. In it they print a table, which shows that 52.9% of those who achieved 5 or more honors in the Leaving Certificate were from ‘higher professional’ background.

The reasoning behind these ‘cram courses’, which mostly only the wealthy can afford, is that as the education system is meritocratic, people will be willing to pay in order to receive the reward of a college place which will grant them the possibility of a high status in society, remaining in the category of ‘higher professionals’. This competition and extra effort can be explained by Drudy and Lynch’s equation of meritocracy, (IQ + effort = merit). From this we can see that the more effort put in by the candidate the greater the resulting merit will be. And we can see that this the case from the number of honor results ascertained in the Leaving Certificate examinations.

Leaving Certificate examinations are not however the only time that this meritocracy can be seen. It can also be seen at the Junior Certificate examination level also. These ‘cram courses’ are also provided at this stage and again emphasis is placed upon attaining high results. This can be seen from the division of classes into different levels; honors level, ordinary level and foundation level. The Junior Certificate is seen in many ways as a chance to divide students into these different levels. If students find themselves unable to achieve high results in one level they may drop down to a level below. However the lower levels also provide lower points. This means that again effort must be put in for the Junior Certificate examinations in order to achieve highly at Leaving Certificate level.

But this meritocracy goes back even further then second level education, but in fact starts at the very beginning of a student’s education. When examining the number of early school leavers in the Irish education system (i.e. those who do not remain in the system to complete their education at second or third level) Trovey and Share wrote, “one determinant of early leaving is reading ability”. They then go on to state that McSorely reported that 19-35% of children who attended poorer schools were behind in their reading ability, while those in wealthier schools were at their expected reading ability.

Drudy and Lynch point out that this reading difficulty would be a disadvantage to those children later in their school lives. This is agreed upon by Ethel Crowley who pointed out in her lecture on the Irish education system, teachers in Ireland are often unsympathetic towards children who are less advanced. This is due to the fact that when in a classroom situation and the class size is large it is difficult and unfair for a teacher to work individually with each child. This means them having to generalise their teaching in order to appeal to the broadest range. This leads to meritocracy through the fact that again it is those that are achieving that are reaping the most rewards through understanding and learning more. This will again go on to aid them later in their school lives.

The issue of meritocracy goes further then just primary and second level schooling. At third level meritocracy can also be seen. Not only must students put much effort in to receiving a place in college, but they must also put much effort in to keeping their place in college. Again this effort does not go unearned, as in the end they receive a degree and go on to find a job in society, which due to them having a college degree will probably be of a higher status then that of someone who did not achieve as highly as they did in the Irish education system.

Third level institutions also have an impact upon meritocracy in the Irish education system in the way that they have an impact upon the amount of college places (rewards) that are given out to those who achieved highly in their Leaving Certificate. Trinity College imposing a cap upon student numbers from 2004 is an example of how this is the case. By limiting the number of students to 15,000 the Provost is admirably attempting to increase the resources and facilities available to Trinity College students. Unfortunately this will increase competition for places, meaning “that points for courses will actually increase beyond there already high levels”. This increase in competition highlights the meritocracy at Leaving Certificate level as again it will only be those who have the ‘IQ’ and put in the ‘effort’ who will eventually gain the reward (‘merit’).

We have looked at the different theoretical bases, which could be applied to the Irish education system as well as where and how meritocracy can be seen. It now important for us to look at the extent to which the system is meritocratic. The different theories I put forward at the beginning of this essay have different levels of meritocracy associated with them. The functionalist view is, as stated by Trovey and Share that education has a major allocative function. While this is what we have seen the Irish education system do, there is one aspect of functionalism that is not true of the system. Functionalists believe that everyone has an equal chance, but in the Irish education system we have seen that there is inequality. Therefore this theory is not the most appropriate one for the system.

From the fact that there is inequality in the Irish system we begin to look at the possibility that the Marxist theory is best suited to the system. This theory not only believes that there is a large class divide and inequality in schools, but also that the system is very meritocratic, and only those who are at the top will remain at the top. Under this theory it is stated that the system would be meritocratic and unequal, as not all students would have access to the same amount of resources and facilities. This would be the case as the bourgeoisie (the capitalists) would be able to afford better resources then the proletariat (the working class). While we have seen that there is inequality in the system, with examples such as the ‘cram courses’ and private schools, and meritocracy. There is one aspect of the Marxist theory which we do not see in the system, that is the under lying values passed on through the hidden curriculum.

This leaves us with the neo-Weberian theory. This sees education used as a way to get knowledge to advance you in society. We have seen that this is the case in the Irish education system through the fact that the further you go in education the higher jobs positions you achieve. This view also takes into account that there can be access problems to resources. We have seen that this is also the case with this system. Therefore we can possibly assess that the neo-Weberian theory is the theory that may be best applied to the Irish education system.

This theory also believes that the system is meritocratic, but that it is only to the extent that it is necessary for society to continue and progress. It understands that not everything is equal but does not go to the extent that Marxists go to, believing that there is a constant cycle, which allows the wealthy to constantly stay the wealthy, but does believe that there is a chance for everyone. The government has attempted to further every students chances by stating in the 1969 report ‘Ar nDaltai Uile: All Our Children’ that “every child, without exception…will receive the best possible education suited to his or her individual talents”.

While I have pointed out in this essay the Irish education system in meritocratic, this is possibly not a bad thing. Drudy and Lynch point out that the industrial and technological worlds are not rigid, but in fact are constantly changing. Therefore it is required that “positions of power, influence and decision-making be filled by the most able and most skilled”. This can be done under the Irish education system as the meritocracy allows only those who are most able and skilled to attain these positions.

Bibliography:

Clancy, P.: ‘ Socialisation, Selection and Reproduction in Education’, ‘ Ireland: A Sociological Profile, 1986
Clancy, P.: ‘Education in the Republic of Ireland’, ‘Irish Society: Sociological Perspectives’, 1995
Drudy, S. and Lynch, K.: ‘Schools and Society in Ireland’, Gill and Macmillan, 1993
Flynn, P.J.: ‘College limits student numbers’, Trinity News, 27th November 2002
Giddens, A.: ‘ Sociology’, Polity, 2001
Trovey, H. and Share, P.: ‘ A Sociology of Ireland’, Gill and Macmillan, 2000