|
The sort of education system we have now is the result of a long series of particular political intentions in education. Certain political ideas have been heavily influential - ideas of separatism and social control in the C19th, ideas which link education to economic growth ("education as investment"), ideas about equality of opportunity, justice, fairness and so on. We have seen the gradual development
of systematic sociological research to test the effectiveness of government
policies, research which has tended to show, classically in the 50's and
60's (which was its heyday) the continuing effects of social background
on educational attainment (see files on factors
in underachievement or social mobility
). This has led to new Government
policies - "positive discrimination" and intervention at the nursery/infant/junior
end, comprehensive schools at the secondary stage, designed to achieve
a number of linked educational and social goals - and even the developmentof
the world's first "comprehensive university", the "university of the 2nd
chance" - the Open University (see file),
developed out of the same educational philosphy that had produced these
other policies.
These policies shared a remarkable
consensus about the suitability of schooling for everyone. The contents
of schooling, so to speak, were rarely questioned - the problem, largely,
was to increase access to the good things that conventional schools were
offering, or, at the very least, to alter the focus slightly in schooling
(eg to emphasise more of the social goals of schooling). Despite the fierce
nature of party politics in the period, the parties shared many of
the deep assumptions about schooling. There was, for example, no Labour
Party policy to create a genuinely populist education suitable for all
as in say China (indeed, Johnson 1981 argues that pressures towards genuinely
popular education, built around the desires and needs of the working
class themelves were deliberately rejected by the State's first attempts
to private universal education in the 1870s).
A similar, and linked, consensus
was found in the sociology of the day.
Sociological Models
This file considers functionalist
models (by far the most poipular with the politicians and educationalists
of the day.For a discussion of marxist models see, for example,Bowles
and Gintis ).
Davis and Moore
The most directly applicable functionalist
model is expressed in a classic way in Davis and Moore (D & M) (1967).
For them, stratification happens to be universal and this indicates some
universal (functional) necessity. Something in society itself is
producing inequality. The background is found in functionalist theory
- societies are organised in order to survive, adapt and solve problems,
and they develop in varous functional mechanisms to solve these problems
and pursue their central goals. The stratification system is
one of these functional mechanisms.
What are the key problems stratification
systems evolve to solve? The major one is placing and motivating
individuals in different positions in society. The problem is this:
not all positions in society are equally pleasant or demanding, and some
are more functionally important than others. We need to motivate
individuals to take on functionally important positions, especially if
these are also unpleasant or demanding. It is an especially acute
problem if the numbers of suitable applicants are limited - if the skills
and talents suitable for important positions are scarce. Societies
answer this problem by attaching different rewards to functionally important
or demanding positions (rewards like income, leisure, status).
So all societies develop different
reward systems to motivate people to take on important or demanding positions.
Those positions with the highest rewards must reflect either (a) the functional
importance of job for society, or (b) that the job requires demanding training
or the development of skills etc. Stratification is thus "an unconsciously
evolved device" (D & M) designed to ensure that the most important
positions are filled by the most capable persons.
All societies must develop stratification
systems. The actual type of stratification systems varies according
to the specific needs of society. Some areas, in some societies,
are more functionally important than others - e.g. in medieval societies
religion was the most functionally important area because it was the main
source of social unificiation - hence religious positions were likely to
gain the highest rewards. Another functionally important area is
Government.
In industrial societies, though,
technical knowledge is very important, so rewards are greatest in jobs
requiring the highest levels of such knowledge. As for differences
in wealth and income in industrial societies - these simply reflect the
different functional importance of jobs too - so managers, scientists,
technicians, engineers and politicians do well because these are very important
functional jobs in industrial society.
Davis and Moore also point out some
problems with industrial societies, especially the tendency for those with
wealth to perpetuate their position and cling on even if their jobs cease
to be functionally important,or their skills relevant. There is also
the tendency for those with suitable knowledge to perpetuate their own
expertise - to dominate training in their own skills whether relevant or
not, and generally to develop restrictive practices.
All societies have both a universal
necessity for some sort of stratification system and specific features
shaping actual systems. And other variables are possible too - e.g.
some societies have vast differences in rewards, others smaller, some allow
a good deal of openness, others are closed and self-perpetuating.
But some sort of inequality is always with us.
This model was quite influential
and can still be detected in Government policy today. It was adopted especially,
in a modified form, by Crosland and the Labour Party, as we shall see below.
(Antony Crosland was both a Minister for Education and a writer on education,
drawing upon sociological work (see Crosland 1980)). It is worth
pointing out that there are some problems with it. Marxists disagree
pretty fundamentally - but there are other problems too.
Tumin
Tumin (in Bendix & Lipset 1967)
identifies the key assumptions and questions them, working from what would
probabaly qualify as a "conflict perspective".
1. What is functional importance,
how can we calculate it objectively, aren't all jobs equally important?
Isn't the whole notion really camouflaging the value judgements and the
real processes of bargaining power whereby particular groups seize rewards
and then justify them in terms of functional importance?
2. Is talent naturally limited or
artificially limited as in Davis and Moore's own fears? In particular,
doesn't the stratification system work to deny the talents of the underprivileged
- how rational is society at detecting talent? (We might add that
some writers say that because of automation and mechanisation we don't
need that much talent to do jobs these days anyway - see Bowles
and Gintis).
3. Does training involve sacrifice
needing large rewards, (how do you see your stay at College?).
If there is sacrifice how large should the rewards be to compensate and
who do so many rewards, (income and status and job satisfaction) tend to
cluster together?
4. There are negative functions (dysfunctions)
of stratification too for Tumin - stratification systems become dysfunctional
because elites won't let go even if functional requirements change, and
the underprivileged feel excluded, resentful and angry. NB Davis
offers a reply to these points too, (in Bendix and Lipset).
Turner and social mobility
Turner's article added to the momentum
of functionalist work by focussing upon various modes of social mobility
(much more optimistic a focus than the statics of social stratification)
There are two ways to recruit and train people to develop talents and take
over functionally important positions.
the untalented have to be (gently)
let down or "cooled out" to leave room for the others (this led to special
cooling out agencies in the US like "junior colleges"). Lots of implications for the education
system flow from this model as Crosland noticed ... inequalities are functionally
inevitable, but one way to overcome some of the dysfunctions is to make
society as open and fair as possible - to keep the inequalities but maximise
social mobility and equalise opportunity. We should base access
on functional criteria - technical knowledge or merit generally.
So the problem for Crosland is - what sort of education system best meets
the requirements of a functional model? Or, to put it in the terms of a
mildly reforming government: how best could an education system be designed
to accomplish these functionally important tasks?. Or (perhaps even more
specifically), what is that makes the US social and occupational system
seem so open and dynamic, compared to the British one (Crosland was a great
admirer of the USA)?
The contest system was seen as the
answer - as better than the existing sponsored system in the UK.
It seemed more rational and efficient since it did not exclude masses of
kids before they had a fair chance to develop and show their talents.
It seemed much less unfair too - instead of children's futures being decided
by present elites, much more rational and objective criteria that might
benefit the whole country in the future could be used to run a proper contest.
Hence the move towards comprehensive schools, which had common resources,
no early selection, a chance for children to show their talents over time,
more flexible arrangements internally and so on.
There was another highly desirable
possibility too - a sponsored system created lots of social distance between
a remote, segregated elite and the rest, but this was expected to be much
reduced in "all-in", community environments - so social mixing would produce
many unneccessary and outmoded differentials of esteem and prestige in
British society (once seen as the "curse of British industry"). Social
mixing would also help unambitious but bright working class kids to mix
with ambitious middle class ones (and cure the problem of low ambitions
identified in work like the Plowden Report see
file ).
Crosland's policies can be seen,
therefore, as developing a contest system (comprehensive schools) and ending
sponsorship (tripartite schools) for good sociological reasons. Comprehensive
schools lead to contest mobility, it was thought - they prolong the contest
rather than making an early selection, and this helps late developers to
compete. It is a fairer contest because it is in the same school,
with the same levels of resources. Groups mix so there is no deep
social separation, equal respect and the reduction of status differences.
Contest systems are seen as fair - and, if they work, more efficient because
their end-products have proved their worth against all-comers.
It could be argued that this functionalist
analysis is the one that underpins much of British Government policy, at
least until Thacherism, and the functionalist approach, and even some of
the modifications of it have set the essential terms of the debate ever
since (it lies behind the 'communitarian' ideals of much of New Labour,
for example). Arguments between the parties can be seen, often, as
really being about improving the efficiency of education as a discoverer,
recruiter and trainer of "functionally important talent". No party
offered a radical break with functionalist conceptions - indeed, given
the strong affinities between functionalism and liberal democracy (Gouldner
1971), this is hardly surprising.
Contest mobility -
the critics
Again lots of criticisms of "contest"
are available, e.g, is it a fair contest if kids come in with unequal home
backgrounds, (this point led to further reforming policies like the proposals
for EPAs in Plowden)? Are the rules of the contest being rigged
anyway - are kids being asked to compete in tasks which already favour
dominant cultural groups? (This last point was never really taken up by
the politicians, however)
Let's note some of Hopper's modifications
to Turner (1971). It is not as simple as choosing sponsored or contest,
for Hopper. Contest faces the problem of ambitions - the "regulation
of ambition", especially the need in Britain to warm up bright working
class kids. Sponsorship on a personal level is probably better for
these kids (and there is some evidence for this in Halsey's survey 1980
see file).
Thus the most effective system is mixed contest and sponsorship (and this
is how the education system is seen by Marxists too in a different way
- apparently, it is an open contest, but there is crafty sponsorship of
middle class kids).
Schools are not able to regulate
ambitions alone, for Hopper - not only are homes important factors, but
the nature of the status system itself is relevant - how realistic is it
to be ambitious - (it is no good if there is no future, if one is already
condemned to be low status, whatever one's qualifications). There
is a strong hope (no more) in Crosland that our occupational system would
be flexible, that it would reflect merit alone, with no prejudice against
working class entrants, blackpeople or women (on gender, see
file ) . And if societies
really are developing along functional or evolutionary lines (a popular
view in the 60s) eventually they will develop open systems - because these
are more functional.
The test case: Jencks
on inequality in the USA
The social and occupational system
of the USA was simply seen as more open by many of the advocates of contest
mobility, as we have seen. Any study which tried to examine the actual
state of social mobility in the US would be of particular relevance, then.
So this is where the final piece of work comes in - Jencks (1972). Jencks
was concerned generally to research inequality in USA, but this work is
a useful test of the whole functionalist model, since the USA is (still?)
the most functionally developed society, the one least dominated by the
old class system (which might be expected to lag on in Europe). Jencks
found:
1. There are massive inequalities
in the USA - far too large to be defended as simply being functional.
People at the top are over-rewarded, over-motivated. This is not
the result of social developments alone - there must be something else
producing large rewards. Rewards are not obviously linked to "functional
importance".
2. There is also a good deal of social
mobility in the USA - elites do not perpetuate themselves very much. The
wealthy and powerful are not very good at ensuring that their kids enter
elite positions.
3. So what does govern access to
elite positions? It should be talent, technical knowledge, if Davis
and Moore are right - but talent (as measured by IQ scores and other measures)
is not very significant in determining rewards. There is a large
part played by random factors like luck and opportunity. (Bowles and Gintis
have reworked much of this data and have concluded that social class not
luck explains the pattern better: see file)
4. The USA is the home of the contest
model. We would expect to find a correlation between educational
success and economic success if the Crosland vision were coming true.
Educational qualifications are significantly linked to economic success
(but remember luck) - but it seems NOT to be because they represent the
skills or talents needed for jobs. It is much less rational than
that - employers prefer highly qualified applicants but they don't know
why! It is certainly rare to find employers curious about courses
or about jobs. What you study or what it proves about you is not
carefully studied - the length of study seems most important rather than
any "skills" you might have acquired.
Concluding Comments
There is now a whole debate on this
notion of contest, of course - and in particular on whether just putting
people from different backgrounds in the same schools is running a fair
and open contest. Two questions arise:
(a) don't some kids start out with
severe handicaps already - from home background etc?
(b) aren't the rules of contest,
or the tasks involved in the contest rigged in some way to favour certain
kinds of (white, male) middle class kid?
This latter point assumes particular
force in the light of the National Curriculum, of course. Some old
debates in the Sociology of Education, (especially Young's - see Young
1971) cast a good deal of doubt upon the claims of such curricular schemes
to be genuinely universal or common - they are far more likely to reflect
the values of the "dominant groups" who have constructed them (and thus
reward those who already possess those values and skills).
There is also some doubt about "social
mixing". One classic study by J. Ford (1969) found that, try as they might
to mix children from different social classes, the comprehensives in her
sample failed to do so, and that social class affected achievement levels
and friendship choices of the children.It would be very nice to replicate
the study today.
Finally, of course, the whole debate
operates in the UK with a still separate system of public schools - very
much a "sponsored" system alongside a "contest" one.
References
Bendix R & Lipset S Class,
Status and Power..., 2nd edition, London, Routledge and Kegan
Paul, 1967
|