K

Week 8 Notes: Social Class and Education

Week 8 Notes: Social Class and Education

  • Core theme: The relationship between social class and education is a central, persistent issue in understanding contemporary schooling and universities. The meme about a “poor startled cat” suggests that social class matters far more than school facilities or programs for academic achievement. The idea is that people are born into a social class by the family they grow up with and the resources and networks they inherit, which shapes educational outcomes.

  • Australia’s egalitarian self-image vs. reality

    • Australia is commonly framed as an egalitarian society with a fair-go ideal and a supposedly level playing field in education.
    • In practice, historical policies and contemporary structures limit schools’ capacity to act as true levelers of inequality.
    • Diane Ray (British sociologist of education and social class) argues: "education cannot compensate for society." In other words, schools alone cannot overcome the broader social and economic inequalities that shape students’ opportunities and outcomes.

  • Key concepts and questions in week 8

    • What is the relationship between social class and education in contemporary Australia? How does social class shape educational experiences and outcomes?
    • Is social class really a meaningful concept in Australia? How does it intersect with ideas of egalitarianism and settler colonial history?
    • Cultural hegemony (Antonio Gramsci) and the ruling class: the dominant ideology benefits those who hold economic, political, and social advantages.
    • Who counts as the capitalist/ruling class in today’s context, and how do they influence education systems?
    • You will explore markers of social class, and how education both reflects and reproduces class distinctions.
    • Suggested media and readings include a YouTube video that frames class as an unspoken, learned aspect of life, and Tim Winton’s podcast about class as a pervasive but often unspoken phenomenon.

  • Cultural hegemony and the ruling class

    • Cultural hegemony reinforces the ruling class’s ideology as the norm, especially in times when economic, political, and social status quo benefits are concentrated.
    • Consider: who constitutes the ruling/capitalist class in contemporary Australia, and how might they influence education policy and practice?
    • A playful teaching device in the lecture: a cat meme prompts you to name who holds the most control over education in Australia.
    • YouTube resource: a video on teaching class as an implicit norm; use it to think about how class is transmitted through everyday practices and institutions.

  • What counts as social class beyond money? Pierre Bourdieu’s four capitals

    • Bourdieu’s framework helps explain how class operates through more than just income:
    • Economic capital: money, assets, property, and financial resources.
    • Cultural capital: personal tastes, language, leisure activities, and cultural practices (e.g., choosing between football and opera; types of travel or leisure; the books you read).
    • Social capital: networks and connections (who you know, clubs, and social groups).
    • Symbolic capital: status and prestige conferred through recognition and legitimacy of your social position.
    • These capitals are interrelated and mutually reinforcing; advantages in one can bolster others, creating durable reproductive mechanisms for class position.

  • The four capitals in practice: markers and implications for education

    • The old school tie as a symbol of cultural and social capital; private school connections can translate into opportunities in business, medicine, academia, etc.
    • School uniforms can serve as performative markers of economic, cultural, and social capital, signaling belonging to a particular class group.
    • The idea that you can have limited economic capital but high cultural/social/symbolic capital (e.g., a person with modest income but access to elite networks and prestige) complicates simplistic classattribution.
    • Exercise: imagine and place roles (nurse, pilot, prime minister, teacher) on a spectrum of capital; discuss who has more social, cultural, and symbolic capital and why this matters for education outcomes.

  • Contemporary class model and classroom resources

    • A short quiz by ANU academics Nicholas Biddle and Jill Shepherd offers a contemporary model of social class beyond the old working/middle/upper divisions.
    • They argue for a more nuanced typology that captures multiple forms of capital and their intersections.
    • Link provided in the slides to take the quiz and explore where you fit within the contemporary model.

  • Readings and discussion prompts

    • Enduring Equality: A comparative chapter/book section examining social class, education, and the experiences of young people in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. Why does comparing these three countries help illuminate the class-education relationship? What historical and policy differences matter?
    • Richard Teese: Institutional Power. Focus on how institutional power (education systems) interacts with economic and cultural forces, and how cultural hegemony shapes these dynamics in Australia.
    • Key questions to answer after reading:
    • Australia: Is the society characterized by equality? True or false?
    • Is schooling success solely about individual ability, or are there broader social, cultural, and economic factors?
    • Is social class only about money, or does it involve other dimensions (networks, cultural tastes, prestige) as described by Bourdieu?

  • Wealth concentration and its global and ethical implications

    • A striking global fact: for the first time in human history, a very small handful of individuals hold more wealth than about 80% of the rest of the world combined.
    • Examples of wealth: Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, Warren Buffett; note the common profile of white, middle-aged, often American individuals.
    • This extreme wealth concentration gives those individuals disproportionate cultural, political, and economic influence (cultural hegemony) on a global scale.
    • The ethical and practical implications are profound: wealth concentration shapes policy, markets, and the distribution of opportunities, including education.

  • The relationship between education funding and social class in Australia

    • The Remykes article and a short video discuss how unequal school funding has long-term consequences for the economy and society.
    • The Australian funding model is unusual internationally: since the 1960s, public money funds both public and private schools, with private schools often receiving disproportionate public funding while charging fees.
    • Rationale offered historically: equity and the belief that all children deserve access to schooling regardless of religion or affiliation; Catholics and Labor voters previously pushed for funding Catholic schools to ensure equal access.
    • The current reality is contested: private schools receive disproportionately high public funding while the majority of students attend public schools.
    • The 1960s–present trend has yielded underfunding in many public schools and growing advantages for private schools through public subsidies and fees, contributing to persistent inequality in opportunities and outcomes.

  • Data points and context to remember

    • Public school share of students: approximately 65 ext{\%} of kids attend public schools.
    • Underfunding claim: 98 ext{\%} of private-of-public schools are chronically underfunded (note the wording in the transcript; the point is that funding levels differ markedly between private and public systems).
    • Economic cost of inequality: Australia's economy is argued to be burdened by inequality to the tune of about 20{,}000{,}000{,}000 dollars (i.e., 20 ext{ billion}) due to the education funding gap.
    • International comparison: an OECD graph shows Australia at the far right (more inequitable funding) while Nordic/Scandinavian countries sit toward the left (more equitable, fully publicly funded education systems).
    • Wealth concentration data: the top few individuals hold more wealth than the rest of the world combined, highlighting the global dimension of cultural and symbolic capital that can influence education systems and policy.

  • Historical snapshot: Gonski and the era of reform

    • The Gonski review (late 2000s–early 2010s) proposed a funding model to make school funding more equitable across Australia.
    • Australia’s model stands out internationally for channeling public funds to both public and private schools, and for the ongoing debates about how to allocate money to reduce inequities.
    • The question posed: why is it important for a society to fund education collectively, and what would it mean to reassert that obligation in policy and practice?

  • Practical and ethical implications for educators and policymakers

    • If education cannot compensate for society, then policy must address the structural inequalities that education alone cannot close.
    • Consider the role of schools in social reproduction: how do funding patterns, school types (public vs private), and access to cultural and social capital shape student trajectories?
    • Ethical question: what kind of society do we want to be? A society that prioritizes equal opportunity through public funding and inclusive practices, or one that accepts growing private funding and the associated stratification of educational outcomes?

  • Summary takeaways

    • Social class remains a powerful determinant of educational experience and outcomes, even in egalitarian rhetorics.
    • Bourdieu’s four capitals explain why wealth alone does not determine class position or educational success; access to cultural, social, and symbolic capital can compensate or magnify economic capital.
    • In Australia, past and present funding policies have contributed to widening gaps between public and private schools, with public schools often underfunded relative to private schools that rely on public subsidies and fees.
    • Understanding the interplay of economic, cultural, social, and symbolic factors is essential for analyzing educational inequalities and for designing policies aimed at more equitable educational opportunities.

  • Key terms to review

    • Social class, cultural hegemony, institutional power, economic/cultural/social/symbolic capital, old school tie, Gonski, equity in funding, underfunding, OECD comparison, neoliberal policy environment, top wealth concentration.

  • Suggested reflection prompts for exam preparation

    • Explain how Diane Ray’s quote reframes the debate about what schools can achieve in isolation from broader social inequalities.
    • Using Bourdieu’s capitals, analyze a real-world example (e.g., contrast between a nurse and a private-school-educated executive) to illustrate how capital types influence educational opportunities.
    • Discuss the ethical case for public funding of private schools vs. focusing resources on underfunded public schools in Australia.
    • Evaluate the impact of wealth concentration on educational policy and the prospects for a more equitable education system in a global context.

  • Additional notes on sources mentioned in the module

    • Tim Winton: podcast on class as the unmentionable but pervasive force in society.
    • Enduring Equality: comparative study of the UK, Australia, and New Zealand concerning class, education, and youth experiences.
    • Richard Teese: institutional power and the interaction between economy, culture, and education in Australia.
    • Nicholas Biddle & Jill Shepherd: contemporary model of social class and the accompanying online quiz.

  • Final prompt

    • Think about what kind of society you want to live in and how education funding and policy can help realize that vision. How could reforms reduce the gap between rich and poor in educational outcomes, and what trade-offs would be acceptable to achieve a more equitable system?