Examination of Three Theories on Educational Inequality

March 2024

Education is a powerful mechanism through which social stratification is perpetuated or challenged. This essay explores education's pivotal role in social stratification, drawing upon the insights of three significant papers in the field by Ralph Turner; Michele Lamont and Annette Lareau; Samuel Bowles, Herbert Gintis, and Peter Meyer. Their contributions offer diverse perspectives on educational inequality, shedding light on the complex interplay between home environments, school systems, and societal outcomes.

Ralph Turner's paper "Sponsored and Contest Mobility and the School System" presents a critical view of how education systems can perpetuate social stratification. Sponsored mobility refers to a system where elite institutions select young individuals based on specific criteria and prepare them for high-status positions, thus maintaining a status quo. Contest mobility, conversely, is a more meritocratic approach, where individuals compete on a relatively equal footing for social positions through their achievements, primarily in education. In this mobility type, elite status is the prize in an open contest. "Since the 'prize' of successful upward mobility is not in the hands of an established elite to give out, the latter cannot determine who shall attain it and who shall not" (Turner 31). Turner's analysis reveals that while contest mobility appears more equitable, the school system typically mimics social inequities since children start at different places in this competition according to their home contexts and primary discourse. Contest mobility states that fairness is accomplished when all competitors start from the same place, ensuring that success is entirely due to individual effort. The tortoise's victory over the hare symbolizes merit-based competition. Initiative, persistence, originality, and willingness to try are valued in contest mobility. Sponsored mobility, on the other hand, rejects open competition and favors a predefined selection procedure. The American high school system offers varied academic paths, aiming to bridge academic and social divides by promoting flexibility across levels for equal opportunities. It values personal effort towards socio-economic success and inclusivity. Contest mobility, emphasizing open competition and inclusivity, contrasts with sponsored mobility, which focuses on efficiency but risks reinforcing inequalities. Balancing these models is crucial for an education system that supports equity and excellence.

Michele Lamont and Annette Lareau's work "Cultural Capital: Allusions, Gaps, and Glissandos in Recent Theoretical Developments" further expands on educational inequality by focusing on the concept of cultural capital. They suggest that cultural capital—the family's knowledge, skills, and behaviors valued by the educational system—is as necessary as intelligence and effort in school. Culturally privileged kids do better in school than their less fortunate classmates, deepening further societal inequality. Schools mirror upper- and middle-class culture and society. While children from these families start school with critical social and cultural cues, their lower-class peers must learn these skills and information later. Less wealthy students can gain social, linguistic, and cultural skills but are not as familiar with them as more affluent students. In elite school curricula, cultural capital is a power resource and informal academic norm supporting class inequality. Cultural capital includes informal school system information, traditional humanist culture, language skills, and certain attitudes that indicate social status. This focus on cultural capital has advantages and disadvantages for educational inequality and social mobility. This approach values diverse abilities and knowledge beyond academic capacity, which may lead to a more comprehensive and inclusive educational policy. It also encourages parental participation since family influences school performance. However, it fosters social inequality by selecting children from culturally rich parents, diminishing opportunities for underprivileged kids. Curricula that favor the ruling class and exclude others reflect this bias. Poorer children face obstacles in learning cultural skills, which might impede their social mobility, self-esteem, and motivation.

In their work "The Long Shadow of Work," Samuel Bowles, Herbert Gintis, and Peter Meyer explore the relationship between education and the labor market. They argue that the educational system is designed to reproduce the existing class structure by socializing students into roles and behaviors expected in the labor market. This perspective suggests that schools are not neutral grounds for opportunity but are instrumental in maintaining the status quo by preparing students for predetermined positions within the societal hierarchy. According to the paper, people accept the social interactions that define their lives when they believe the system will supply their wants. Schooling validates economic inequality and creates a class-based consciousness while teaching work skills. The educational system promotes capitalist labor division skills and discourages others, reproducing awareness. It influences students' self-perceptions, ambitions, and class identities through institutional interactions to meet economic requirements. The analysis extends to how different social classes exhibit distinct behaviors; the lowest level adheres strictly to rules, the middle-level values dependability, and the highest internalizes enterprise norms. Additionally, it discusses the perpetual cycle of schooling, where mastering specific behaviors allows progression to higher levels or directs individuals into corresponding positions within the economic hierarchy. One advantage of this system is that it rewards students who advance through educational levels, such as obtaining a master's degree, with potential income increases that reflect their efforts, offering control over their future economic status and lifestyle. However, a significant drawback is the unequal access to opportunities and resources for further education, leading to increased societal stratification, as not everyone can afford to progress to higher levels of education.

Among the three examined theories, I align with the insights presented in Lamont and Lareau's examination of cultural capital. Their nuanced exploration of how educational outcomes are intertwined with social stratification and cultural dynamics offers a profound critique of the existing educational paradigms. It argues for reevaluating the meritocratic assumptions underpinning educational systems, emphasizing the critical role of cultural capital in shaping educational trajectories and outcomes. Coming from a K-12 private school, I experienced firsthand how the school and class structures reflect the values of the upper and middle class and inherently benefit children from these backgrounds, thus reinforcing societal and educational inequalities. Wealthier children come to school with social and cultural advantages that lower-class children must work hard to attain, often falling behind. Wealthier students have a natural advantage in developing social, linguistic, and cultural skills compared to less affluent students, highlighting a consistent educational and social gap. The preference for the curriculum favored by the ruling class restricts opportunities for disadvantaged children and inhibits their ability to move up in society. They reveal the hidden curriculum of prestigious schools, where certain cultural information and behaviors are subtly taught and appreciated, perpetuating social class distinctions.

Local school systems need to take an integrated approach to addressing educational disparity. This involves developing adaptable academic paths that provide smooth transitions between various educational levels and, as a result, lessen educational segregation. Diverse cultural viewpoints should be incorporated into curricula and extracurricular activities to guarantee that all students can access the cultural capital that the educational system values. With focused assistance and resources, efforts must be made to give every student an equal starting position, especially those from underprivileged families. Students from lower classes might need more assistance to catch up or get used to the school. However, separating them from others to assist them would further increase the segregation and potentially affect their self-esteem. Therefore, a balance should be found between assisting kids who require more attention and keeping unity between the classes. The critical question we need to consider is: Is it acceptable to temporarily segregate students based on their social backgrounds to level their educational standing in anticipation of later unifying their education and potentially offering a higher quality of education? Or do the potential drawbacks, such as exacerbating inequality and fostering segregation, outweigh any long-term advantages?

References

Bowles, Samuel. "The Long Shadow of Work." The Structure of Schooling, edited by Richard Arum, Irenee R. Beattie, Karly S. Ford. SAGE Publications, 2015

Turner, Ralph. "Sponsored and Contest Mobility and the School System" The Structure of Schooling, edited by Richard Arum, Irenee R. Beattie, Karly S. Ford. SAGE Publications, 2015

Lamont, Michele. "Cultural Capital: Allusions, Gaps, and Glissandos in Recent Theoretical Developments." The Structure of Schooling, edited by Richard Arum, Irenee R. Beattie, Karly S. Ford. SAGE Publications, 2015