5.2 Education and social mobility

Functionalist accounts of meritocracy

the education system is meritocratic

allocates individuals to their future jobs and status in society on the basis of talent and ability rather than gender, ethnicity and class

Parsons

schools promote the key shared values of achievement and equality of opportunity

as societies modernised, social selection became based on achievement rather than ascription

if there is fair access to opportunity, it is fair to give different rewards to people for different levels of achievement

equality of opportunity does not imply equality of outcome

Davis and Moore (1945)

linked education more directly to a system of social stratification

education system sorts and grades students in terms of abilities and talents

meritocracy operates as a mechanism for allocating individuals to suitable occupations

although inequalities persist, they are accepted as fair

Criticisms of functionalist theory

• education systems are not based on equality of opportunity to begin with (e.g. some students gain advantages because of parent’s financial capital)

• schools are not meritocratic

  • underachievement of WC results from social factors rather than lack of ability and talent

• meritocracy is a myth, not reality

Peter Saunders (1996)

meritocracy allocates individuals on the basis of effort and ability

social inequality not necessarily unfair

genetic factors may play a part in explaining these differences

sociologists focus too much on social factors, such as class divisions, social advantage and disadvantage, rather than intelligence or innate ability as explanations

intelligence and effort are the main factors influencing an individual’s social position in British society

Social democratic views on education and social mobility

support the idea of meritocracy

social inequalities can prevent equality of opportunity in practice

Marxist accounts of meritocracy

notions of equality of opportunity are ideological

help disguise the realities of class exploitation and domination under capitalism

schools do not provide equality of opportunity, they provide the capitalist enterprises with the workforce they need

Bowles and Gintis

meritocracy is a myth

ideology via which the education system disguises social and economic inequalities

• e.g. poverty is acceptable because it is seen as resulting from individual failings

Bowles (1976)

rejects the idea that schools in the USA evolved as ‘part of a pursuit of equality’

actually developed to ‘meet the needs of capitalist employers for a disciplined and skilled labour force’

educational inequality is rooted in the class structure of capitalist societies

at the same time, education reproduces and legitimises the class structure

→ schools appear to be open to all

Bowles zinger line

The close relationship between educational attainments and later occupational success thus provide a meritocratic appearance to mask the mechanisms that reproduce the class system from generation to generation

life chances

an individual’s chances of obtaining those things defined as desirable, and avoiding those things defined as undesirable in their society

The consequences of educational underachievement

• negative impact on economic growth (human resources not put to their appropriate use)

• wastage of talent; affects economic efficiency and international competition

• motivation and productivity of underachievers will be lower

• inequality is maintained over time if certain groups underachieve

• suggests a lack of equal opportunity in society

social mobility

movement between social classes/strata/levels in society

important factor in an individual’s life chances

closed/open systems

closed systems - little social mobility (e.g. caste system in India)

open systems - more social mobility, status is achieved and not ascribed

intragenerational mobility

mobility within a single generation

— guy gets a raise

intergenerational mobility

mobility between generations

— guy was cleaner, kid is CEO

absolute mobility

the total amount of mobility happening in society

relative mobility

comparative chances of people from different class backgrounds reaching particular positions in the class structure

Oxford Mobility Study (Goldthorpe, 1980)

quantitative research

survey of 10,000 men in England and Wales

based on seven-class scheme designed by Goldthorpe

aimed to give insight into the impact of the 1944 Education Act on educational achievement and social mobility

the Act introduced a test for 11 year olds, which decided what school they would attend

OMS - Findings

found high rates of absolute mobility

more upward than downward social mobility, because the proportion of non-manual jobs increased compared to manual jobs

relative mobility chances varied greatly between the classes

45.7% of sons with class 1 fathers ended up in class 1

7.1% of sons with class 7 fathers ended up in class 1

absolute mobility increased because occupational structure of the economy changed; there was no significant increase in the openness of the British stratification system

OMS - Problems

ignores women

ignores existence of small elites - class 1 was a very large group, lower rates of mobility may be found if the smaller divisions within it were studied

absolute mobility increased because of changes in the occupational structure of the economy, rather than improved equality of opportunity/reduction in life chances

John Scott (2005)

an individual’s life chances of upward or downward social mobility depends on their class background significantly more than their educational achievements

Breen (2004)

social mobility differs across countries, examined:

how far class origins influenced educational success

how far educational qualifications influence occupations

in the most meritocratic countries:

→ class should have little effect on educational success

→ occupational status should be strongly influenced by educational qualifications

Sweden most meritocratic of European countries

Britain least meritocratic

Functionalist ridiculous dream of the future (Accounts of social mobility)

• recruitment to important occupations is increasingly based on merit

• the role of education has become that of determining class position

• the relationship between educational attainment, social class and class position will grow stronger over time

• in response to the demands of industrial societies’ economic organisation and technology

• increasing demand for staff will lead to:

  • the expansion of education systems

  • reforms to increase equality of educational opportunity

• ascribed status will be replaced over time by achieved status via education

• societies will become increasingly socially mobile and meritocratic

• associations between class origins and educational attainment will weaken over time

• intergenerational social mobility will increase

Goldthorpe (2013)

there has not been a tendency in most advanced industrial societies for the association between educational attainment and class destination to STRENGTHEN

there has not been a WEAKENING of the association between social origins and class destinations

Brown (2013)

many studies highlight continuing inequalities in social origins, education and destinations linked to class, ethnicity and gender

it is necessary to address class inequalities in life chances to increase intergenerational social mobility rates

suggests credentials have become less important to employers

competency-based recruitment combines hard currencies (educational qualifications) with soft currencies (personality, character, social confidence)

argues job candidates now turned down because they lack personal qualities, not credentials

relationship between educational attainment and class destination has grown WEAKER, not stronger

Neoliberal approaches to social mobility

focus on giving people from disadvantaged backgrounds the chance to compete with people from more privileged backgrounds

Brown (2013) (neoliberal)

neoliberal approach focuses on absolute rather than relative mobility

ignores the evidence that absolute social mobility can occur without any reduction in life chances

many families experience ‘social congestion’ rather than intergenerational social mobility

the economy does not have the capacity to deliver enough professional occupations to meet demand

has led to crowding in the labour market

job applicants have to compete to stand out from each other; this only increases congestion bc everyone does this

universities and employers respond by raising entry requirements

Feminist approaches to social mobility

• women’s chances of upward social mobility are more constrained

• might be caused by gendered subjects at school and beyond

• female students less likely to study STEM

• subject choices may negatively impact on female’s earnings from paid work, future career options and social mobility chances

• male-dominated sectors (such as IT) more highly paid than female sectors (teachers)

• gender discrimination in labour markets have negative impacts on women’s social mobility