EDUCATION

Education is referred to as a process of learning during which an individual acquires not only
knowledge but also skills (ability to perform task correctly and efficiently) and attitudes (values,
moral standards). Education is claimed to be an integral part of the socialization process starting
from birth and ending with death.

Education can be in the form of :

• Formal education

What is learned in organisations such as schools and colleges where learning is more
organized and examinations take place after fixed periods.

• Informal

What is learned in an individual’s everyday life through the different agencies. Informal
education at school is known as the hidden curriculum and it refers to everything that is
learned at school which is outside the official curriculum.

Theories about the links between education and the economy

In traditional societies people live on farming and formal education is not important. With the
emergence of industrialization and factory-based production, people no longer work for
themselves, rather they work outside the home and receive a salary in return of their work. So,
with industrialization there has been an increasing demand for skilled and educated labour force.
Due to this more emphasis is being put on the education system which is the institution that
prepares the future workforce according to the demands of the society. The different sociological
approaches have explained the relationship between education and the economy in contemporary
modern societies.

Functionalist Perspectives.

The functionalists have examined the role of the education system for the maintenance of the
society. According to this approach, the relationship between education and work is one of
dependency. The workplace needs the education system to be able to function properly. The
society is a system composed of different inter-related parts and all the different parts should work
properly for society to function properly. Each part has its own roles to perform for the
maintenance of the system. The education system has the task of preparing the future workforce
and this is a role that the other institutions cannot perform.

Functionalists claim that education, educational changes and provisions are functional
prerequisites to service (upgrade) the economy. The growth of educational provisions is seen as
fitting in the needs of an industrialised society. Having a skilled labour force is also a prerequisite
that is a necessary condition for the society to function properly. Education ensures the provision
of suitable, well-qualified and skilled workers to better adapt to and adopt new technologies to be
better efficient in a highly competitive world market. Giddens describes the modern society as a
knowledge society, an information society and a service society. Education ensures adaptive
capacity and upgrading. This explains the expansion of higher and vocational education. There is
a growing need to balance knowledge and technical skills.

According to Davis and Moore for an economy to develop and progress, it is essential that
education performs the selection or role allocation function. The educational system provides for
the assessment of pupils' ability and aptitude so as to allow and select the best qualified to fill in
the most functionally important positions and which carry the highest rewards. Education ensures
that the right man is placed in the right place and in doing so, society is organised according to
meritocratic principles. This also helps to achieve economic progress.

Parsons and Durkheim have also emphasized on the role of education in transmitting the norms
and values of the society which help to bring value consensus and collective conscience. An
economy cannot progress without shared values. There need to be a commitment to societal norms
and values to achieve cohesion and economic progress. In addition, individuals need not only to
be skilled and well-trained; they must also be disciplined to act as responsible members of society.
Disciplined individuals are an important socialising function of education. So, education does not
only prepare students to be skilled workers but also to have the necessary behaviour needed at
work for example, workers who respect rules and regulations, who have respect for higher
positions, who are hard-working and competitive, obedient and so on. Sociologists thus argue that
education acts as an important agency of social control in shaping behaviour. Parsons has argued
that school acts as a bridge between home and work which means that schools prepare the next
generation for their entry in the work market both in terms of skills and behaviour.

The labour market has a demand for skilled workers with academic qualifications but has also a
need for people who have more technical or practical qualities. Therefore, the education system
has been formulated in such a way so as to get all types of workers who can serve the economy.
The tripartite system in Britain include grammar schools which focus more on academic
qualifications and which prepare the future professional workers, the modern secondary schools
which is a mixture of both vocational and academic prepare students for the service sector and
secondary technical schools known as vocational schools prepare students to acquire more
technical and practical qualities. Therefore the tripartite system serves the economy in the sense
that it prepares future workers for all fields of work.

Neo-functionalist / new right

The neo-functionalist approach is quite critical of the functionalist. They do not agree with
functionalists like Davis and Moore regarding the view that the more academically qualified
people should be better remunerated because they are doing the most important jobs. The sharp
division between academic and vocational jobs is no longer applicable as this type of division is
too inflexible. Modern societies require a workforce with multiple qualities that is, someone who
is able to solve problems rather than just remember dates and names, someone able to work with
others and so on. The neo-functionalists argue that the 21st century has changed where there is an
increasing demand for the service sector that is the workers should have both practical and
academic qualifications.

Marxist approach

The Marxist explains the role of the education system in the capitalist system. The capitalists need
workers to be able to perpetuate the system and the education system helps to prepare the workers
as per the requirements of the capitalist system.

Marxists sociologists are particularly critical of the claim that a skilled labour force is required to
service (upgrade) the economy or to make the economy better adaptable to new requirements.
There is no overwhelming evidence to support that jobs really require higher level of skills and
trainings. In fact, schools and its curriculum are seen as part of the superstructure controlled by the
infrastructure. The expansion of educational provisions is not related to the demand for skilled
labour to have economic progress. Rather it is an effort on the part of the ruling elite to perpetuate
the system. That education provides for a skilled labour force needed to upgrade the economy is a
mere illusion.

According to Bowles and Gintis, the correspondence principle is maintained at all levels of the
education system that is, the organisation of the school closely corresponds to the organisation and
demand of the workplace. So, the education system prepares the type of workers needed by the
economy for example, some students are prepared for repetitious jobs, others for middle levels
jobs with the ability to work independently and those to do higher levels jobs.

Bowles and Gintis see employment as an important aspect of the capitalist economy and as a
major influence on the nature of the educational system. For the capitalist system to survive, it is
necessary to have a docile, obedient, cheap and subservient labour force. It is not a question of
servicing the economy but rather to better adapt to the needs of capitalism. For instance, with
globalisation the capitalist system is expanding itself and is becoming a world phenomenon.
Workers need to adapt to such a change, workers need to be skilled to be competitive, workers
need to be skilled to optimise production, profits and minimise costs.

The relationship between education and the economy therefore is said to be based on cultural
reproduction that is, the ruling class use the advantages they enjoy to keep their position in the
society. The formal curriculum plays an important part in cultural reproduction because it allows
children of different social classes to be separated into different employment age. For Althusser
(1971), schools act as an ideological state apparatus which transform students into what the system
requires that is, they learn to accept inequality in the workplace and their positions at work. Bates
and Riseborough (1993) argue that the vocational education has been developed for the working-
class students and the middle-class follow the academic route for professional employments. So,
the working-class people remain in their position as they will work in lower-paid jobs with low
status.

Clark and Willis have criticised vocational education and training programmes. These are
supposed to develop in youngsters the necessary skills to make them employable. In fact,
vocational education is simply a strategy used by capitalists not only to have a pool of skilled
labour but also to keep youngsters busy studying before work is made available for them. It is not
surprising that in many industrialised societies, the labour force is becoming over-qualified.
Vocational education and training is simply meant to divert attention from the real threats of
employment. Thus, educational changes and provisions are not directed to service (upgrade) the
economy but rather to safeguard the interests of capitalism.

Feminist approach

In modern societies, women have paid jobs like men and the education system channel girls and
boys into different types of jobs. There is a sort of sexual division of labour at work where men
and women are considered as more suitable for some categories of works. The gendered
curriculum prepares girls and boys to fit these professions. The primary sector market composed
of high-paid jobs with job security and other fringe benefits are reserved for men whereas women
do subjects at school which will pull them more towards the secondary sector market which low
job security, low salaries and bad working conditions. Very few women are able to join the primary
labour market. Women are found mostly as nursing, teachers, and so on whereas men are
engineers, doctors, businessmen, managers and so on. The education system supports the gender
stereotyping views which exist in the society and this is reflected at work also.

Explanations of educational achievement and intelligence

Many sociologists have been interested to study the link between intelligence and achievement
and many argue that those who are more intelligent perform better in education. But, this issue has
been explained differently by other sociologists. Eysenck, a psychologist has claimed that
intelligence is inherited and those who have intelligent parents inherit their intelligence and have
more chances of success. This view has not escaped criticisms as there are many sociologists who
claim that intelligence is not inherited rather is developed in the environment of the person.
Therefore, the middle-class will have a higher intelligence because of his/her environment
compared to the lower-class.

Sociologists have argued that it is not so simple to examine the impact of intelligence on
achievement because there are different definitions of intelligence. The psychologist Gardner has
examined 7 different types of intelligence ranging from the conventional, linguistic, and
mathematical to interpersonal intelligence. So, different people can be intelligent but in different
fields which makes it difficult to measure the extent that intelligence can impact on educational
achievement.

IQ tests are measures designed to grade level of intelligence of people. These tests have been
claimed to be objective tests of innate intelligence that is intelligence that individuals have
inherited and they have been claimed to provide a good measure of level of intelligence but they
have been criticized in the sense that they do not consider cultural influences such as class, gender,
age and ethnicity. Apart from this, the results of the test will be influenced by the culture of the
person. For example, some people are used to answer such questions or have a better exposure to
different things that can help them better in answering the questions. This will be reflected in the
results obtained in the tests. Those with a weaker cultural background will definitely be at a
disadvantage.

Further to that, it is inappropriate to compare intelligence and achievement because this measure
does consider the disadvantages both material and cultural that some students particularly those of
the lower-class and ethnic minorities face.

The relationship between education and social mobilty

In modern societies status is achieved rather than ascribed meaning that the position a person
occupies in society can be changed and improved depending on his/her personal achievement.
Education is said to be one of the avenues of social mobility and also the easiest way to move up
on the social ladder. Therefore, education has an influence on the level of mobility in the society.
Different sociologists have been very much interested in studying the relationship between
education and social mobility.

Social mobility refers to the movement of individuals up or down on the social structure. Social
mobility can be measured in terms of :
Intergenerational mobility
It refers to the movement of people between generations in the same family by comparing the
parents with the children’s social class. For example, the father is a labourer thus working-class
and the son is a doctor thus middle-class.
Intragenerational mobility
It refers to a person’s social mobility over the course of his/her life, comparing the position of
someone’s starting occupation with his/her occupation at retirement. For example, a person started
his career as a clerk and ended as a manager.

Functionalists perspectives

For the functionalists like Parsons, the education system acts as a bridge between home and work
and school has been argued by Durkheim to be a society in miniature where the people are being
prepared to adapt to the requirements of the society.
The functionalists have explained how the modern society is meritocratic and the education system
helps to give equal opportunities to all people irrespective of their social background. Achievement
is said to be based on ability and effort. The education system provides a fair system where all
people can compete on equal grounds and obtain the opportunity to move on the social structure.
The education system treats all students equally and those who suffer from certain deprivations
are compensated. For example, there has been the introduction of the compensatory education
programs which have allowed the students who come from deprived backgrounds to get access to
education and in this way be in a better position to improve their standard of living because the
possible way for these people to escape poverty and move on the social hierarchy is through
education.

In the society there are different jobs which are available and there is a need for suitable people to
perform these positions. Therefore, the education system allows this selection to take place. Davis
and Moore argue that the education system grades and allocates students into different roles based
on their differential achievements. So, education helps to put the right man in the right place.
Some people are placed in the prestigious jobs and others in skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled jobs.
So, the education system encourages people to work harder in order for them to occupy the most
important jobs with the highest rewards. Davis and Moore argue that those who occupy the most
important jobs should receive the highest rewards. In this way those who are lower on the social
hierarchy are encouraged to work harder which can help them to be socially mobile.

Neo-functionalism/new right

The neo-functionalists have mixed the idea of meritocracy with individual life choices. If the
education system provides the same opportunities to people then whether the person will achieve
success or not will depend on his/her personal choices. Saunders (1996) argued that social
mobility is related to education in the sense that it reflects the life choices made by different
individuals and groups. So neo-functionalists argue that choices of people are more important than
factors such as gender, ethnicity or class. According to Saunders, some parents invest more on
their children’s education and this ‘investment choice’ combined with hard work by the children
themselves lead to success in education and higher chances of mobility.

So, some students perform well and are able to be upwardly mobile because they choose to work
harder compared to those who are unsuccessful as they fail to participate fully in their education.
These students also possess certain cultural capital that gives them an advantage over other
students that is, some students have family, economic, social and cultural advantages. So, social
mobility is related to education but depends on the personal choices and cultural capital of the
children.

Marxist approach

The Marxists have been critical of the consensus approach which focuses on the education system
being meritocratic and as an important source of social mobility. For the Marxist, the education
system is not an avenue of social mobility rather is a way used by the capitalists to maintain their
dominant position in the society. The education system helps to reproduce and legitimise
inequality that is, makes inequality more acceptable where people learn to accept the system as
being fair and just. Rather than ability and effort it is social class than influence achievement.

For the Marxists, the main role of education is not to enable people to improve their lives rather is
cultural reproduction. This is done through inculcating the skills, knowledge and ideas needed at
work. The education system helps to continue the domination of the ruling class by helping the
children of the rich to achieve the level of education to follow the same paths as their parents. So,
roles are passed on from parents to children with the help of education. The rest are prepared to
fill the remaining jobs. In this way, those in the lower-class are either not able to move socially or
move but within their own social class.

The capitalist system needs a large reserve of cheap labour therefore, the education system
prepares students to be cheap labour force and in this way prevent them from being socially mobile.
Aldridge(2004) argues that a key feature of modern industrial societies is a lack of occupational
mobility for those lower down the class structure. The capitalists restrict entry to higher positions
on the social hierarchy because they want to maintain their position and also exploit those found
at the lower level.

Feminist approach
The feminists have also been critical of the education system as according to them the education
system keeps women in the lower positions because they learn and are prepared for jobs at the
lower reach of the job hierarchy. So, women find it difficult to be socially mobile. At school girls
are encouraged to do certain subjects that will lead them more towards certain jobs which are
concentrated in the secondary sector market. Therefore, they have lower chances to compete with
men and to be socially mobile. Through the hidden curriculum there is gender socialisation where
girls learn that they are different from boys and they develop a lower expectation and aspiration of
themselves.

Debates about the links between social inequality [class, gender, ethnicity] and educational
opportunities and achievenment

All students do not perform equally in education. The differential achievement can be explained
in terms of the social groups the children belong to for example, the social class, gender or ethnicity
as the experiences of these students from different backgrounds are not same which impact on
their educational achievement.

The functionalists have elaborated on the cultural factors which impact on performance of
students.
There are factors both inside and outside school that impact on achievement

SOCIAL CLASS

CULTURAL DEPRIVATION
 • Parental interests
According to Douglas parental interest plays a crucial part in students’ performance at school. The
lower class lack parental interest which impact on their performance. The middle class parents are
more child-centred and they give time and importance to the education of their children which act
as a motivation for the children to work harder. The lower class children thus lack encouragements
from their parents who focus more on their works than on education of their children. The lower
class parents having many children cannot give time to the children. Finstein believed that parental
support was the most important factor influencing educational attainment. Sugarman has referred
to the nature of parents' jobs on educational achievement. Lower class parents do manual jobs with
low income and less job security. These parents lack the financial ability to invest in the education
of their children. For many of these children the outcome is early school dropout.

• Language
Language is another important element which is part of the culture of an individual and which
plays a crucial part on achievement. Bernstein has argued that there are 2 codes of language, the
elaborated and restricted speech codes. The language of a child reflects his/her cultural
background. The lower-class children often have a restricted language which is limited in terms of
vocabulary and is a simple language. These students have a language that clashes with the
elaborated speech code of middle-class teachers and the education system in general. Therefore,
they are disadvantaged in education compared to the middle-class students who bring with them
from home an elaborated speech code which makes them better able to express themselves in the
‘language of education’ and thus perform better and are also able to give a better impression to
teachers who regard them as brilliant.

• Economic pressures
Another element in the culture of students is the economic pressures on family life which result in
working-class children leaving schools at the earliest opportunity. Parents’ attitudes and economic
pressures combine to create a tendency towards immediate gratification. So, due to poor
economic situations the lower class parents encourage their children to leave school the earlier
possible and to help the family. So, the children learn that school will not help them to come out
of the difficult situation they live in rather they need to work and help their family. So, they leave
school to move into manual jobs and the fact that they know that they are going to leave school
early; they do not give importance to their studies and perform poorly. The middle class parents
encourage their children to achieve and focus more on deferred gratification that is, long term
satisfaction. Education is seen as a ‘means to an end’ of higher status jobs. Hyman argues that the
value system of lower class people, their attitudes to education, their choices and priorities, family
atmosphere may create a self-imposed barrier which prevents educational success.

• MATERIAL DEPRIVATION
The Marxist approaches have focused more on material factors to explain achievement. Material
deprivation refers to factors such as poverty or a lack of physical resources. Material deprivation
involves a combination of factors that give working class pupils a disadvantage in education like
for example, poor diet, and lack of school materials or resources, poor housing conditions and
because of poverty they need to work to supplement family income.
Prosser and Wedge found that lower class children are less healthy and thus are more frequently
absent from school. This negatively affects their performance. Mewson found that lower class
children are brought up in a less stimulating home environment with very little motivation to
achieve success at school. They are given less opportunities to get on with education.

Heath, Halsey and Ridge argue that material factors are significantly important in achievement
at school. Lower class children lack educational toys, games, books, a better diet, sufficient space
in the home, fewer opportunities to travel, dictionaries, calculators, etc. Again it is socio-economic
background which determines the amount and quality of material resources children have to
succeed.

Material deprivation leads to cultural deprivation. Material deprivation is measured in terms of

money; cultural deprivation is measured in terms of attitudes, lifestyle and behaviour.

The development of different class cultures built around different norms, values and attitudes flow
from material advantages and disadvantages. Class subculture theory takes this a step further by
arguing that education systems are dominated by middle-class norms, values and ideologies. While
some working-class sub-cultural groups succeed by adapting successfully to their environment,
others do not. Underachievement therefore is a by-product of rejecting school values.

The working-class face multiple situational constraints which prevent them from achieving.
Westergaard and Resler (1976) argue that while working class parents ‘have a high and
increasing interest in the children’s education they lack the means to translate that interest into
effective influence on their children’s behalf.’

Mac an Ghaill argued that a person’s class origins are the best predictor of educational success or
failure. The upper-class kids are destined for lower-class jobs and the working class people are
destined for lower class jobs which according to the neo-Marxist concepts of class reproduction
helps to ensure the continued hegemony of the ruling class. The middle class parents invest more
on their children and this can explain their continuation in professional jobs.

In school factors – Interactionist Perspective

Interactionists explain differential educational achievement in relating it to various factors or

variables found within the school. These variables play an important role in determining success
or failure. Certainly schools vary in quality of staff, location and infrastructure. However, the
major explanation which identifies the school being itself responsible in determining achievement
focuses on teacher-pupil interaction and pupil-pupil interaction with the formation of pupils
subcultures.

Interactionists have emphasised on teachers’ expectations, that is the way the teacher perceive,
make sense of and respond to the behaviour of students. In his study, Hargreaves has tried to
analyse how pupils come to be classified through the labeling process. The teacher gradually forms
an opinion about the student and this may be either positive or negative. This is how students come
to be labelled or defined as bright or trouble-makers or failures.
Becker has questioned in his study some sixty teachers about what they think to be the ‘ideal
pupil’. Most of them defined the ideal pupil as one having a good conduct, appearance, a hard
worker. Most teachers correlate the ideal pupil to social class background. The middle class child
is closed to the ideal pupil. Such a perception is likely to have an important influence on teacher-
pupil interaction in the classroom which is bound to influence performance of pupils.

The labelling theory suggest that pupils behaviour can be shaped or influenced by the way teachers
define them and interact with them. Interaction in the classroom is influenced by teachers'
predictions. Gradually, the pupil’s self-image is shaped accordingly – he sees himself as a failure
and he fails. The prophecy is fulfilled. This is why Thomas claims that “If situations are defined
as real, they are real in consequences”.

Teachers’ expectation, pupils’ self-image, teacher-pupil interaction and pupil-pupil interaction

may also be influenced by the streaming system (grouping pupils in a stream based on their exam
performance). Keddie found that teachers’ expectations vary from stream to stream. Teaching
methods and materials used also vary from stream to stream. Keddie found that pupils in the ‘C’
stream were given less knowledge, less work to do and were allowed to make noise. Pupils in the
‘A’ stream were defined as the “ideal” pupils. The ‘A’ stream pupils were successful in their
education largely because they were more willing to accept teacher’s knowledge, rules and
regulations of the school and work hard and within this framework, Keddie concluded that if
pupils’ acceptance of teachers’ knowledge, authority and school rules and regulations which made
them successful then, it is clear that streaming of pupils has an important influence on teachers’
judgments of children’s ability.

Another important element within the school which impact on achievement is the pupil-pupil
interaction. This is largely influenced by labelling, typing of pupils and the streaming system.
Evidence exist to support that pupils who have been labelled and those who are in the ‘C’ streams
are defined as slow-learners and troublemakers. They are typed as failures and they are grouped
together. They are the marginals of the school, ostracised (rejected) and faced with problems of
being rejected. Unable to achieve good results, these students seek out the company of others in
the same situation for e.g, all those labelled as failures are thrown together which provides them
an ideal opportunity to form a sub-group within the school. Within this group a sense of worth is
achieved, status is gained by breaking school rules, bunking classes, disrupting lessons, cheating
in the exams and failing to do homeworks and exams. Thus, within the school a sub-culture emerge
– a deviant sub-culture. It is to be noted that this sub-culture is a product of labelling, negative
teacher’s expectations, typing and streaming of pupils. This is in contrast with Willis who claimed
that the ‘lads’ brought a deviant sub-culture with them to school.
 ETHNICITY

In Britain the different ethnic groups do not perform equally in education. The ethnic minorities
have always showed a differential achievement in education. The Afro-Caribbeans are those who
perform poorly in education compared to Asians who are also ethnic minorities but who have been
able to upgrade their position due to their values, attitudes and strong family support which act as
motivations for them to overcome all difficulties. Thus, Driver and Ballard have concluded it is
the Asian family’s atmosphere or climate, their home environment which become a positive
resource helping children to perform well at school.

These are variables outside the school which determine educational success. Material and cultural
deprivation largely explain underachievement of Afro-Caribbean children. The nature of family
life and climate influence the quality of home environment, parental support and motivation.
Generally their parents tend to have a negative attitude to schooling. These children come from
broken homes, live in poor quality housing, deprived and over-crowded areas, come from homes
with high rates of unemployment, are not properly socialized because parenting style is too
authorities or negating. Parental attitudes are absorbed by children for e.g, children also perceive
school as irrelevant and unimportant. They also develop a strong sense of resignation and fatalism
and always looking for immediate satisfaction. Thus, Afro-Caribbean children have been found to
face a series of disadvantages in their socio-economic background which explain their poor
performance at school.

• Racism
Racism is an everyday encounter in the lives if Afro-Caribbean people. They are victims of racist
stereotype, prejudice and discrimination both outside and within the school. Research in primary
and secondary school have revealed an unusually high degree of conflict between white teachers
and Afro-Caribbean. Teachers have negative expectation of them and they are often labeled as
trouble-makers and failures. Such attitudes of teachers may well produce a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Due to racist comments Afro-Caribbean children develop a negative self-image which lower their
performance. The educational system tends to make black pupils educationally subnormal by
making them feel inferior and intellectually backward. Due to racist stereotype black students are
made to understand that they are second grade, under-developed and bound to fail. The reaction
of Afro-Caribbean students may be dramatic. They are likely to fight racism through the
development of a counter school culture. Thus, a sub-culture emerges among Afro-Caribbean
students. A sub-culture which is meant to protect their sense of worth, a sub-culture which
establishes a design of living to give members high status. This produces a vicious circle: already
held prejudices and teacher’s expectation are reinforced. Afro-Caribbean anti-school culture is also
reinforced. The result is high rate of educational underachievement among these children.

• The Ethnocentric curriculum

As a result of racism in both the school and the wider society, many Afro-Caribbean children in
Britain may grow with a negative self-image – a lack of self-respect and confidence because they
feel that they are in some ways rejected. The school curriculum may well reinforce racism. Coard
has shown how textbooks portray Black and White people differently. For e.g, Black people are
always associated with subordinate, second grade roles like for e.g, the submissive servant. Black
is associated with evil, white represent enlightenment. Thus, the school curriculum tends to be
ethnocentric reinforcing racist stereotypes. Ethnocentrism means that school subjects on a
particular society and culture rather than giving due respect to the cultures of different ethnic
minorities. This may cause a culture clash between home and school for Afro-Caribbean pupils.
The result is low motivation and poor educational achievement.

• Language
Afro-Caribbean children speak a different dialect of English, Creole or ‘Caribbean English’. Many
children from ethnic minorities may have a language other than English used at home. Driver and
Ballard argue that this language differences may be an obstacle to education achievement.
Children have difficulties in doing school work and communicating with the teacher. Teachers
may mistake language difficulties for lack of ability. In other words the language used by Afro-
Caribbean children may lead them to be labelled as different, sub-standard. Children may develop
a poor self-image leading to the self-fulfilling prophecy. Because Caribbean English is non-
standard English, it may be unconsciously penalised in the classroom. The same may apply to
Bangladeshi, pupils who are perceived as ‘low ability’ because they may speak English as a second
language. Language differences create a cultural clash which becomes an important obstacle to
motivate and progress at school.

GENDER
Girls experience of school has always been different to that of boys. As early as in the late 19th
century, the motives behind educating girls were that they should become either knowledgeable
companion for men if they were middle class or domestically able if they were working class.
Working class girls were taught needle work, cooking and domestic science. Various forms of
discrimination prevailed at school against girls which negatively impact of their educational
achievement.

Sexism in education persisted in the 20th century and reflected in numerous government reports.
For e.g, the 1926 Education Report advocated the expansion of the house crafts syllabus to achieve
greater efficiency in the household. The Northwood Report, accepted that boys should be educated
to get a job while for girls their destiny was to marry and raise children.

In modern societies with the expansion of the education system, more job opportunities for girls
and easy access to education, more and more girls are staying longer in the education system and
they have even proved to be better than boys in many fields. Nowadays, girls are said to perform
better than boys in education and this is due to several factors.

Differences in performance of girls compared to that of boys can be explained through social,
economic changes as well as changes in gender socialization. Wilkinson (1994) argues the gradual
change from manufacturing to service industries has given rise to a ‘knowledge-based’ economy
which increasingly value skills such as interpersonal and communication skills as well as skills for
conflict resolution which are found in women as they learn such skills at home.

Changed parenting attitudes have also contributed positively to the achievement of girls. Parents
no longer differentiate between boys and girls education. They encourage both to pursue higher
education.Carter and Wojtkiewicz (2000) found that parents are getting much more involved in
their daughters’education than they were in the past.

The feminization of schooling has also been beneficial in girls’ education. Girls have more female
teachers as role models and the curriculum is also more encouraging for girls. The teaching and
testing regimes favour female ways of thinking and teaching. The curriculum also discourages
certain behaviours which are normally found in boys and this may result in the development of
anti-school subcultures which affect their performance.

Girls are now more career-oriented. Girls have more opportunities to express a range of different
‘fields’ including one that involve a career. Girls want to find a place in the economy and be
financially independent therefore they are encouraged to work harder in order to find a place in
this competitive world.

The interrelationship between class, gender and ethnicity

Class, gender and ethnicity are considered as 3 different factors influencing achievement but they
are in fact interrelated as they can be present in one individual that is, a person can be a girl, lower-
class and black. Marxist sociologists argue that social class is the primary source of educational
disadvantage with gender and ethnicity being secondary sources that appear within classes.

Structures and processes within schools

• The social construction of knowledge and learning; power and social control as
factors influencing the structure, content and development of the curriculum

Weber (1992) argues that all societies develop beliefs about what ‘is worthy to be known’. This
means that every society set the curriculum to be taught at school based on certain specific criteria
like for example, the economy. Sociologists have been interested in studying the processes through
which knowledge is socially constructed in education systems that is, what kind of knowledge is
taught, to whom and for what purpose. One way of looking of how the school curriculum is
prepared is to look at the development of the education systems in the context of modernity and
postmodernity.

Modernity
In modern societies, great emphasis has been put on the education system because it is an important
requirement for the needs of the economy.

The Marxists have examined how the education system serves the economy and maintain the
power of the ruling class. Althusser has elaborated on cultural reproduction which involves the
ability of a ruling class to pass on its political and economic domination from one generation to
the next. Accoding to Althusser education acts as an ideological state apparatus where the future
labourforce to serve the economy is being prepared. Teachers are seen as agents of ideological
control who ‘transform pupils’ consciousness’ by trying to get them to accept ‘the realities of life’
and their future social positions.

The education system decides what knowledge to pass on and how people should learn it. In this
way what people think and believe is shaped by what they learn at school. Young(1971) argues
that what counts as educational knowledge always has an ideological dimension. The curriculum
is prepared from a particular viewpoint and for a particular purpose. For example, the hidden
curriculum has been formulated to prepare a particular type of workers who will benefit the
capitalists. For Young the ideological construction of knowledge is part of a wider hegemonic
process. Powerful groups decide about the curriculum and they assess the learning process through
means like examinations which are seen as objective, fair and meritocratic and thus no reasons to
be questioned. So Young argues that the formal school curriculum reflects the interests of a ruling
class in the capitalist societies. Bernstein states that how knowledge is organised affects the
messages pupils receive about the nature and purpose of education.

Illich (1973) from the liberal perspective has also emphasized on the relationship between
education and the economic requirements for discipline and hierarchy (a classification of
positions). School as it is now functioning has failed. Children learn much but which has nothing
to do with the content of the lesson. School inculcates a passive consumption in the sense that
learners have no possibility to decide what they want to learn. Thus, they are learning to be
submissive, to accept uncritically the social order. Children learn much but which are not implicit
in the school curriculum. These are aspects form the hidden curriculum. Children are taught that
their role in life is to do what others tell them to do. Through qualification education has become
a commodity. Illich see schools as existing for the benefit and advancement of teaching
professionals rather than those who are getting education. Teachers protect their interests by using
qualifications to allow certain groups access to particular professions. So, professional teachers
control knowledge by deciding about what to learn and how these should be validly expressed.

Illich has advocated a ‘deschooling society’ because the present education system has been a
failure. The present-day schooling does not promote equality, creative abilities, critical thinking
and the possibility for the child to develop to his full potential. According to the philosopher
Dewey education should be transformative that is focusing on the individual’s social,
psychological and moral development and allow them to develop their ‘full potentials’. For Illich
the modern schools are simply places where students ‘learn how to pass exams’ rather than being
taught how to create things, think problems through or develop their human potential.
Postmodernity
The postmodernists see education in a different ways. They have examined how institutions such
as schools exist to serve purposes which for Foucault (1977) are based on power that is, how the
state use institutions like schools to control the population. Further to that, they examine the
increasing resistance of students and teachers to the centralising tendencies of modernist education
systems that is, students and teachers are demanding greater control in the education system. All
these have important implications over the social construction of knowledge and learning and how
power and control are exercised and experienced.

Schools control the curriculum to be taught and how they will be taught. The education system
also imparts the culture of powerful groups and protects their interests by preventing people from
going against them. Students are controlled at school in terms of how they behave and what they
do inside the school.

On the other side, the postmodernists elaborate on the changes in behaviour of students which have
accelerated with the increasingly cross-cultural contacts and exchanges due to glabalisation.
Postmodern pupils are becoming more independent and individualistic. Students are more active
in the education process and they want to be treated as individuals rather than as groups in terms
of class, gender, age and ethnicity.

The impact of the system on educational achievement

Marxist sociologists have analyzed the impact of the capitalist system on educational achievement.
They do recognize the importance of both out of school deprivation and differential treatment in
school to explain achievement of pupils. However, they argue that deprivation is a consequence of
structural inequalities. The educational system, shaped by the economic infrastructure, fails lower
class children so as to ensure the reproduction of cheap labour and perpetuate the system. Failure
among lower class pupils is seen as both inevitable and desirable.

The ‘capitalist culture theory’ explains failure among lower class pupils. Failure is seen as being
the fault of pupils themselves and not the system. This is a mere strategy of capitalism. The
educational system is biased because it promotes the culture of the ruling elite which is believed
to be worthwhile whereas knowledge of the lower class is rejected as being inferior.

Cultural capital-worthwhile knowledge is not evenly distributed through the class system. Elite
children have been socialized into the dominant culture. They have learned to internalize certain
knowledge so that when they enter school there is no clash. They possess the cultural capital
understand teachers. They succeed. Lower class children lack the ‘cultural capital’ to ensure their
adaptation to school. Thus, there is a clash which leads to failure and early school drop outs.
According to the ‘cultural capital theory’ teachers are influenced by the style and manners of
students when giving grades. The closer the style is to the dominant class, the more likely is the
student to succeed. Lower class children have a different style and possess a different ‘cultural
capital’ which is in conflict with school. It is in this respect that school performs the social function
of elimination- to eliminate lower class children from achieving success and higher level of
education. This is achieved in 2 ways (1) self-elimination and (2) exam elimination. Due to many
obstacles in the way of lower class children to achieve success and become early school drop outs
(self-elimination). If these children decide to continue it is the examination which eliminates them
(exam elimination). The system is never blamed, those who fail are blamed. The reproduction of
cheap labor is achieved.

Pupils subcultures and attitudes to education

Every school has its own culture. Woods (1976) argues that there is a range of subcultural
responses or adaptations to school culture. Some students are ingratiatorsthat is, they are students
who look for the favours of their teachers and others are rebels that is, those who reject the culture
of the school and who may develop a counter-school culture.

Examples of school subcultures:

• The lads ‘Counter school culture’ – Paul Willis.

The view that schooling prepares children, shapes their behavior, controls them and makes them
docile and obedient may not be always so. Willis study is an investigation of ‘how working class
kids get working class jobs. According to Willis, during schooling, lower class children come to
see that they are not clever enough and accept their inferiority which contributes to make them
more into ‘Dead end Jobs (manual Jobs)’. Willis has also thrown light on the existence of deviant
subculture at school. His views have been elaborated in his book ‘learning to labour’.

Willis has studied members of a group who called themselves the ‘lads’- 12 white working class
boys. The lads were opposed to school and rejected school rules, disciplines and authority. They
were opposed to the school system and considered it as an alien environment which tries to control
their behavior, freedom and independence.

The lads had a counter school culture opposing school and which they had brought with them at
school. They derive pleasure from rejecting rules, disciplines and authority of teachers. They came
to school ‘ to have laff (laugh)’ and they were involved in marauding activities like escaping
classes, smoking at school, disrupting lesson, refusing to perform academic work and teasing and
threatening hard working students. The lads were extremely sexist and racist. They were looking
forward to leave school as early as possible to go to work. They were prepared to perform any job
provided it was a strong, masculine job. School was not rewarding but work would give them adult
status and money in their pockets.

According to Willis, the ‘lads’ failure at school can be explained in terms of their anti-school
culture, their rejection of school and their willingness to leave school as early as possible to look
for a strong masculine manual job. Thus, it is clear that school has failed to shape, formed the
‘lads’ to become docile, obedient and hard working. School has failed to control their behavior
and here Willis is trying to show that the views expressed by conflicts sociologists like Bowles
and Gintis may not be exact. Certainly, the ‘lads’ were prepared for low paid ‘dead end jobs
(manual jobs)’ but it was their own choice.

• Boffin boys were generally conformist and pro-school, with a group identity based on
working hard and aspiring to social mobility.
• Less (1993) described the pro-school girls, who valued school as an enjoyable place for
socializing with friends, but who were generally anti-education; qualifications were not
particularly important.
• Mac and Ghaill identified what he called ‘Real Englishmen’, a group of middle-class
pupils who aspired to university and the professional careers enjoyed by their parents. This
group played an elaborate game of ridiculing school values while simultaneously working
hard, mainly in private outside school. They believed this was achieving success on their
own terms.

Anti-school subcultures exist at school because:

• Of the background of the pupils which encourages them to reject the values of the school
for example, the lads came from a working-class family where education was not seen as
important.
• Developing a subculture particularly anti-school subculture was a way to rebel and show
their opposition to the system. Teachers tend to negatively label them so it is a way to rebel
against that.
• They wanted to form their own status at school. They face status frustration.

Post modern perspectives on Education

Post modernist’s analysis of education is centered around 2 themes:

• Education and modernity
• Education on the post modern era
Education during the modern period was meant to spread rational and scientific knowledge that
would liberate or free people from the influence of superstition and traditions. The aim of education
was to make individuals fully autonomous (independent) and capable of exercising their individual
and intentional agency which will bring social progress.

Post modernists reject the belief that science and rationality can solve human problems. They reject
definitive explanations theories, taken for granted paradigms (perspectives) in education, whether
they are liberal, conservative or progressive, for e.g, post modernists are suspicious about the
liberal claim that human potential can be achieved through education, reject functionalist or
conservative claims that education can produce shared values and consensus, reject radical claim
that education can effectively produce equality of opportunity.

Post modernists deny (refuse to accept) that there is a single best curriculum, instead they argue
that education should teach many different things based on the fact that there can be many and
different troops, no attempt should tried to impose are set of ideas on all learners. They suggest
that education needs to take into account cultural pluralism, i.e the different need of different roots,
emphasis need to be placed on life-long education and learning, the recognition and exploration of
cultural differences and educational provisions should be made for the marginalized and oppressed
groups.

Post modernists also drew attention to the need of having adult education to upgrade knowledge,
flexible and distant learning to meet each individual’s needs, they proposed decentralizing of
knowledge which implies moving away from seeing any particular knowledge as central or
superior.

Educational changes and meritocracy

Important changes which have occurred in Britain (and Mauritius) as regard to the educational
structure include:-
• The introduction of free education (in Mauritius in 1977).
• Various laws have been introduced to extend educational provisions and this make
education more accessible to each and everyone.
• The educational act of 1986 increased significantly the power of parents in the organization
of the school. In Mauritius there is the PTA system.
• The education act of 1988 set up technological colleges which select pupils according to
their ability.
• The introduction of the national curriculum consisting of core and foundation subjects to
be taught to all pupils between 5 to 16 in state schools.
 • Schools are now given the possibility to apply to the local authority to become more
autonomous.

Since 1974 changes have been introduced to emphasize on improving the skills of pupils. The aim
is to make them more adaptable to new technological requirements. Thus, the growth of vocational
education including Youth Opportunity Programmes, Youth Training Schemes or the technical
vocational and educational initiative.

Growing emphasis is laid on compensatory education. The aim is to compensate for the material
and cultural deprivation among certain groups in certain areas. These areas have come to be known
as priority areas. In Mauritius, they are known as ZEP (zone education prioritaire).

Whether or not changes in the structure of the education system have increased the possibility of
upward social mobility and made society more meritocratic remains debatable. A change in life-
style does not necessarily mean a change in social class positions. Meritocracy implies that there
is increasing equality of opportunity for one and all regardless of social background or gender.
Meritocracy means that everyone should be able to climb up the social ladder through effort and
sacrifice. Meritocracy means a system in which people occupy a social position on the basis of
ability and talent. Meritocracy also means a more flexible and open society.

Functionalists support the meritocracy thesis (theory). They claim that education, educational
provisions have indeed increased social mobility and open the way for those at the bottom to climb
up the social ladder. Functionalists have provided the following evidence:-

• Educational changes have increased equality of opportunity, make it more effective and
contributed to develop in people the economic system and educational provision. As the
economy develops and with the introduction of new technologies, educational changes
become a prerequisite to ensure that workers are sufficiently equipped with the appropriate
skills.

• In modern industrial societies like Britain, qualifications are now available to all who aspire
to achieve them. Opportunities are provided to those who want to make effort. Statistics
show that university intake among the lower class has increased .The gap between boys
and girls are getting smaller. The previously important ascribed status has been replaced
by achieved status. Who the person is depends on his talent or ability rather than his social
background or gender.

• Upward social mobility is greater in a society which operates on meritocratic principles.

Those who obtain the highest qualifications are likely to occupy position which carry the
highest rewards .Davis and Moore claim that education is the mechanism to sort out the
most talented from the is the mechanism to sort out the most talented from the least talented
.
 • Education helps to motivate individuals to achieve more. The principles of meritocracy are
important values which promote possibility to social change and bring about a more
flexible society.

• Educational changes and provisions encourage greater personal development enabling

people not only to develop skills but also to live in harmony with others. Durkheim claims
that meritocracy would be impossible to achieve without value consensus and collective
conscience.

• Compensatory education has proved that if an additional is given to those who are deprived,
significant improvement can be achieved in terms of performance. This also proves that
equality of opportunity becomes effective.

• Certainly some forms of inequalities are inevitable since there is a ladder of opportunity.
Not everyone can climb to the top. The failure of many children to achieve their full
potential is due to material and cultural deprivation together with poor socialisation.
However, compensatory educations have attempted to compensate for such deficiencies.

Critical sociologists (mostly Marxists and Radical feminists) reject the meritocratic thesis. They
claim that despite major educational changes and new provisions, the chances for educational
success and social mobility are not the same for people of different classes, ethnic background and
gender. Thus, success does not seem to achieved on merit. They claim that meritocracy remains a
myth, a mere illusion. They have provided the following evidences:-

• Reid has shown that the chances of going to a university are still gender for middle class
children.

• Mills argues that access to top positions is controlled by members of professions. They
allow entry to those of the same social class. Those at the bottom are trapped at the bottom.
They system is more elitist than meritocratic. There is also a high degree of self-
recruitment. This means that children tend to follow their parents in the same profession.
Thus, limited opportunity is given to those at the bottom. Self- recruitment becomes a sort
of a glass-ceiling which is a barrier preventing upward social mobility.

• Halsey has compared boys from classes one and two with those of classes 4 and 5. They
boys in class 1 and 2 have 40 times more chances to enter a university. Thus, it is clear
that educational changes have not increased opportunities for upward mobility and has not
made society more meritocratic.

• The majority of working class children cannot have access to position of high status
because the curriculum is bias, favouring the ruling elite. School does not promote social
change, does not provide greater opportunities but rather acts as a conservative force or
 mechanism to maintain the status Quo (everything remains as it is). School promotes
elitism rather than meritocracy.

• Althusser claims that the educational system has undergone changes which are simply a
reflection if the capitalist system and structure. The educational system, the device used
by the capitalists to reproduce the type of labour force the system requires. It is in this
respect that vocational education has been introduced. Docile workers need also to be
skilled to better adapt to new technologies. Illich claims that educational provisions are
meant to achieve cultural reproduction.

• Compensatory education has been criticised. This form of education is a strategy used by
the ruling elite to divert attention from the inequalities within the educational system. The
aim of compensatory education is to develop in those who are deprived, the feeling that
they are responsible for their failure.