STRATIFICATION IN SOCIETY (Social Stratification) AND HOW IT AFFECTS EDUCATION AND THE LEARNER

I.

Social Stratification This is a sociological term that refers to an individual's position within the hierarchy of economic production in a society. This position dictates the individual's economic and social rewards. Social stratification is a hierarchical system of ranking people according to their wealth or prestige. INEQ !"IT# is the une$ual distri%ution of scarce goods or resources& e'ists in many different types of cultures. S()I!" *I++E,ENTI!TI(N defines how people vary according to social characteristics. S()I!" ST,!TI+I)!TI(N deals on how people are ranked according to the scarce resources they control.

Social stratification1

Simply put, it is the condition of being arranged in social strata or classes within a group. a. (rigins of Social Stratification In early societies& people shared a common social standing. !s societies evolved and %ecame more comple'& they %egan to elevate some mem%ers. To understand stratification& a system %y which society ranks its mem%ers in a hierarchy& we must first understand its origins. -unting and gathering societies had little stratification. .en hunted for meat while women gathered edi%le plants& and the general welfare of the society depended on all its mem%ers sharing what it had. The society as a whole undertook the rearing and sociali/ation of children and shared food and other ac$uisitions more or less e$ually. Therefore& no group emerged as %etter off than the others.

Today& stratification is the norm throughout the world. !ll societies stratify their mem%ers. ! stratified society is one in which there is an une$ual distri%ution of society0s rewards and in which people are arranged hierarchically into layers according to how much of society0s rewards they possess. %. Effects The rigidity of social stratification varies according to a society's level of social mo%ility. The greater the level of social mo%ility& the more easily a person can move from a lower social class to a higher one.
II.

The Learner as the res lt of E! cation Types of "earners

a. 1isual "earners

They tend to %e fast talkers. They e'hi%it impatience and have a tendency to interrupt. They use words and phrases that evoke visual images. They learn %y seeing and visuali/ing. They speak slowly and tend to %e natural listeners. They think in a linear manner. They prefer to have things e'plained to them ver%ally rather than to read written information. They learn %y listening and ver%ali/ing. They prefer for information to %e displayed in writing& such as lists of ideas. They emphasi/e te't2%ased input and output. They en4oy reading and writing in all forms.

%. !uditory "earners

c. ,ead23rite "earners

d. 5inesthetic "earners

They tend to %e the slowest talkers of all. They tend to %e slow to make decisions. They use all their senses to engage in learning. They learn %y doing and solving real2life pro%lems. They like hands2on approaches to things and learn through trial and error.

From the above-mentioned general classes of learners, it can be surmised that families on a better social status generally are more able to send their children to schools whose curricula are customized to their childrens way of learning. "# The Effect of Social Stratification on E! cation an! the Learner$%

+or e$uality of educational opportunity through the schools& they must imply a strong effect of schools that is independent of the child's immediate social environment. Education is seen to teach the skills and knowledge necessary for work in a modern& technical& industrial society& for e'ample& literacy& numeracy and computer skills. 1ocational courses aim to train individuals for the world of work. (ne way or another& according to functionalists& education prepares individuals for their future occupational roles. Therefore& the successful transmission of the norms& values and roles through the a%ove functions helps society to progress in an orderly way. The main claim is that schools and society in general are meritocratic. 6.eritocracy7 ! system of stratification where those most $ualified get the highest positions in the hierarchy and those with the least $ualifications get the lower positions in the hierarchy.8 This means that positions in society are achieved rather than ascri%ed. !ccording to *avis and .oore 619:;8& social stratification represents a mechanism through which those who are most a%le and talented intellectually are allocated work roles that offer the highest rewards in terms of income& power& status and so forth. This is seen to %e %ecause the most a%le& capa%le and competent mem%ers of society must fill the adult roles that are seen to %e the most functionally important. In this way& education is seen as the proving ground for a%ility and the selective agency for placing people in different 4o%s according to those a%ilities. Education is primarily a mechanism providing for social mo%ility< only secondarily is it a mechanism where%y social class positions are sta%ili/ed across the generations. Seemingly disparate conclusions a%out the trends in educational stratification follow from arrangements of the same data which restrict attention to the impact of social origins on specific transition points in the process of schooling.
III.

The

Relationshi&

'et(een

social

stratification

an!

e! cation) an! its Ulti*ate Effect on the Learner%

1. A classic e+a*&le ', a ,o n- A*erican 'lo--er.%

Lets say that

am the son of an !an" #anager,

will have the chance,

because my dad has the money, he will afford to send me lets say to $arvard, where will get a degree witch in the other hand is highly valued on the %ob mar"et and will lend me a good paying %ob with a good social status. &n the other hand if my dad is an unemployed.... will have to do with community college, or will have to start wor"ing after high school without a degree, no degree no good %ob, no good %ob no high salary nor good social status.'
=. Rele/ant &oints in a st !, on st !ents in the Unite! States $% Social class position predicts grades, achievement, and intelligence

test scores, retentions at grade level, course failures, truancy, suspensions from school, high school drop-outs, plans for college attendance, and total amount of formal schooling.

t predicts academic honors and awards in the public school, elective school offices, e(tent of participation in e(tracurricular activities and in social affairs sponsored by the school, to say nothing of a variety of indicators of )success) in the informal structure of the student society.

*here differences in prestige value e(ist in high school clubs and

activities, in high school curricula, or in types of advanced training institutions, the social class composition of the membership will vary accordingly.

f social origins e(plain about fifteen to thirty percent of the variance in educational attainment, then factors completely unrelated to social origins must account for the remaining seventy to eighty-five percent of the variance.

+he effects of family bac"ground on educational attainment may have

decreased slightly for both whites and nonwhites. ,egardless of color, in every cohort it has been advantageous for a young man to come

from a family with few children, with both parents present, and with a family head of high educational and occupational status.
+he only systematic trends in the net effects of the bac"ground

variables are apparent increases for nonwhites and decreases for whites in the influence of intact family. +his finding is congruent with the view that -egro family structure is a crucial barrier to reduction of social and economic ine.uality between the races /0.S. 1epartment of Labor, 23456, but the importance of intact family itself should not be overstated /!. 1uncan and 7. 1. 1uncan, 23436.
&ne important finding about trend which cannot be discerned is that

little of the gain in educational attainment over time need be attributed to improvement in the social origins of successive birth cohorts /!. 1uncan, 23489 :8;6.

0# A s **ar, of a st !, on &ri*ar, e! cation con! cte! in In!ia 1 <hildren in private schools are more li"ely to be able to read better than children in government schools. $owever there are no further differences in reading achievement levels that can be attributed to school-type once the child is able to read. +his indicates that private schools are significantly more successful at teaching children to read, li"ely due to a greater investment at early levels of a childs enrollment. $owever, other structural factors not related to school-type are responsible for differences at higher levels of reading. *e do not see meaningful effects of the medium for instruction, suggesting that the language that the child is taught in does not matter for their reading achievement. Socio-demographic characteristics of households, especially the social group category, matter significantly in e(plaining differential levels of reading. <hildren belonging to lower caste households are at a

disadvantage and consistently less li"ely than their higher caste counterparts to demonstrate reading s"ills or be at higher reading levels. +his indicates that although children from disadvantaged social groups may be attending schools in larger numbers than before as national enrolment data show, they are not learning as well as many of their peers. =n urban advantage e(ists in education, and is present at both the level of any reading ability and being able to read whole paragraphs or stories compared to only words. <hildren in urban areas are more li"ely to interact with a larger group of educated peers and adults, and have greater opportunities to participate in environments and situations that encourage reading in particular, indicating that children in rural areas are faced with multiple relative disadvantages in stimulating formal educational achievement.' 1# An e+cer&t of a st !, on st !ents in the Unite! 2in-!o*%0 f the family size goes up the students) achievements will be wea"er. +o ma"e this issue clear, it can be stated that by increasing the family size, the parents) sensitivity, consciousness, and pursuit of the family toward the childrens achievements will be less. Furthermore the material and economical possibilities are shared among a great number of people /family members6, so the students) achievements will be wea". Somehow, the students with economic status depending on higher social status have better educational advancement than the students with poor economic status.' 3# The follo(in- is a list of ass *&tions lea!in- to the -ro(th of &ri/ate schools in China4%
a8 >rivate schools will provide .uality education to students for their

academic and holistic human development /?i, 2334, @u, 2334, *u, 23346. !y providing better conditions, diverse curricula, and

e(perienced teachers, private schools promise .uality education for their clients.
%8 n an ideal mar"et, it is assumed only .uality products will succeed. n

a sense, success in the mar"et place defines .uality, though we may argue over this mar"et driven definition.
c8 >arents believe that .uality education in private schools will enable

their children to succeed in competition /!i, 23386.

d8 =s additional families send their children to private schools, public

education e(penditures for these children can be reallocated to those schools underfunded by government /!ray, 2334, @u, 23346.
e8 >rivate schools are considered to better serve the educational needs of

parents and children /Ahang, 23346. +here are Bhigh-pricedB students /students who are admitted to a particular school on their parents) ability to pay school fees rather than on their test scores6 in public "ey schools.
f8 >rivate schools are regarded as laboratories for public school reform

because they are believed to be able to mobilize funds and human resources, develop educational philosophy, create their own management styles, see" a connection between school and society, and improve curriculum and teaching. n this way and because private schools offer increased competition, they may force higher standards among public schools and in both senses Bma"e up for the deficiencyB of the state-run educational system /Ahang C Sha, 23346. 4# 5 otin- a &art of a st !, con! cte! in Israel6% Studies throughout the years have repeatedly indicated that residents of development towns e(hibit lower educational attainment, hold lower status %obs, and earn less than persons residing in more centrally located communities /Semyonov, 23D2E Suan, 233DE Swirs"i C =t"in, ;7726. +he conclusions drawn from these findings were twofold9 first, that peripheral communities provide a less favorable opportunity conte(t than other

localities in srael, and second, that the une.ual opportunity structure faced by such towns due to their spatial distribution, is responsible for the persistence of ethnic disparities.' $# Lastl,) an interestin- /ie( on e! cation an! social stratification on &ost -ra! ate st !ies3% Fducations effect on stratification is instantiated in the e(perience of graduate school. Graduate school ma"es a clear distinction between graduate students, who enter relatively e.ual. !ut they leave clearly distinguished by capabilityE some students benefit more from graduate school than others. Graduate school probably brings students close to their ma(imum stage of performance. +he less advanced students may have already reached their inherited performance ceiling. $ence, the continuation of education further stratifies individuals by stage performance and increases the variability among themHagain, not what is hoped for by those who view education as an e.ualizer of opportunity. +he point is to show that all social policy, no matter how well guided by good moral and ethical principles, has unintended conse.uences. +hese unintended conse.uences are .uite often antithetical to the original goals that led to the adoption of the social policy in the first place. Sonnert and <ommons /233I6 have argued that this is inherent to all social systems. +here are no solutions, %ust better ways of muddling through.'

I1.

Concl sion 3hether we accept it or not& social stratification is real& and its effects

on the education and on the learner can easily %e seen and felt. Numerous

sociologists and well2researched studies from around the world underscore this point. In the >hilippines& the general norm is that the higher level of education you achieve& the easier a person can move from a lower social class to a higher one. !s an old +ilipino adage says& ?kapag mas marami kang alam& mas masarap and iyong ulam.@ In a reverse manner& the level and $uality of education achieved is generally dependent on the social status of the %readwinner. Those with a fatter paycheck can send their children to %etter schools than families who can %arely make %oth ends meet. This is a vicious cycle which is apparent in most families who have not %roken their inherited vow of poverty for many generations. Aut this sad truth has also %een overcome %y e'ceptional cases of driven individuals who have escalated the steps to higher social classes through diligence and hard work 6sipag at tiyaga8 and are now giving a good future to their children& thus %reaking the vicious cycle. The education of a person usually dictates the resultant social status of an individual. ! %etter education almost always leads to %etter chances of getting the choicest 4o%s or landing in a %etter profession than those who did not achieve the same level of education due to poverty andBor other social factors. In the >hilippines& it0s not always the rich who are recogni/ed& %ut more on those who were a%le to attain a college degree& especially so with post2graduate studies like "aw& .edicine& .asters or *octorate *egrees. !ll in all& it seems that a higher level of education achieved gives the person a higher level of social mo%ility to move from a lower social class to a higher one. Coing directly to the point& a high level of education tends to give the person a good social status and healthy social recognition in >hilippine society.

,eferences7
1. )onse$uences

of Social Stratification in Education D e-ow.com

http7BBwww.ehow.comBinfoEF;:GF=9Econse$uences2social2stratification2 education.htmlHi'//=I(ewT%pJ
=. http7BBwww.scri%d.comB4oydacuan 6>uerto >rincesa& >hilippines8 K. The Effect of Social Stratification on ..!. . Students' !chievement %y

!li Sorayaie .aragheh Islamic !/ad mail7 asorayaieL#ahoo.co.uk

niversity&

nited 5ingdom< E2

:. Stratified Society and Segmented Schools7 The Effect on )hildren0s

"earning %y !%hi4it 1isaria and .inseop 5im 6India8

;. I.>"I)!TI(NS

(+

-IE,!,)-I)!" of

)(.>"EMIT# -arvard

+(, .edical

S()I!" School&

ST,!TI+I)!TI(N& E)(N(.I)S& !N* E* )!TI(N %y .I)-!E" "!.>(,T )(..(NS& *epartment >sychiatry& S! )am%ridge& .assachusetts&

G. Quality Education and Social Stratification7 The >arado' of >rivate

Schooling in )hina %y -ao4ing )heng and Arian *e"any of .ichigan State niversity nited States %y ,(AE,T .. -! SE,&
N. Educational Stratification in the

niversity of 3isconsin
F. ET-NI) ST,!TI+I)!TI(N !N* >"!)E (+ ,ESI*EN)E IN IS,!E"7 !

T, IS. ,E1ISITE* %y Irit !dler& Noah "ewin2Epstein and #ossi Shavit