Education and socialisation

Education and cordialisationIt appears that studyal success generally rises with family income, many a(prenominal) sociologists see material deprivation as the major(ip) cause of inequality in educational success. Halsey, Heath and Ridge (1980) examined the education careers of males, and found that those from higher social backgrounds were much more likely to stay in education past the minimum leaving age than those from working correct backgrounds. They pointed out that a major reason for this was the cost of staying in education, and this denied many working division people from gaining higher-level educational qualifications. Douglas (1967) also believed that poor life conditions in the home were major factors in educational failure. In a survey, he divided his sample into two groups those who had sole use of household facilities, such as bathrooms, and those who did not. He found that the children living in unsatisfactory condition scored much more poorly on tests that th ose in satisfactory conditions. Reason suggested for this include poor housing conditions and diet lead story to ill health, leading to absence from school, and underperformance while thereOf course, sociologists from different schools of thought have very different opinions on such divisions within schools. Functionalists would argue that the inequalities that populate within the education system do so for haughty reasons. Talcott Parsons argued that schools take over from the family as the primary source of socialisation, transmitting confederations norms and values and preparing children for their role in adult life. School provides the future workforce with the basic skills required to enable them to respond toconstantly changing occupational requirements (Bilton, Bonnet, Jones, Stanworth,Sheard Webster, Introductory Sociology, 1987, Pg.308). Parsons believed that school is a meritocracy and, no matter of class, those with the ability to do advantageously go forth flouri sh, entering the workforce at a more specialised level and those without that ability will do slight well, entering the workforce at a more menial level. Thus, both will be prepared for their future role in society and the allot places within the labour market will be filled.The functionalists view is a narrow one, and in this and other cases it has been acc apply of painting too rosy a picture of inequality functionalists whitethorn argue that it is necessity for the success of society, that not everyone can achieve in school, go on to Universityand consequently higher nonrecreational employment, but this offers little consolation to those who feel they are being or have been kept down by the education system. Parsons in particular has been criticised for impuissance to give consideration to the possibility that the valuestransmitted by the educational system may be those of a ruling minority rather than of society as whole (Haralambos and Holborn, Sociology Themes and Perspect ives, 1995, Pg.729). The fact that teachers are generally middle class themselves could mean that thevalues being taught in school right away defend those being taught at home, possibly leaving the child feel confused and unable to live up to conflicting standards.Marxist Pierre Bourdieu argued that the role of the education system is to reinforce class differences. This, he believed, is achieved by promoting the dominant culture of the ruling classes in the classroom through the use of language, ensuring that working classstudents will be less likely to understand and be understood. This disadvantages working class pupils, and by creating educational success and failure, reinforces class. Basil Bernstein expounded this theory with the notion that the different lecturing engraves used by the middle and working classes causes divisions in itself. The restricted code, which is context bound and requires previous common knowledge between users, and the elaborated code which is not c ontext-bound, and does not require previous common knowledge. He believed that middle class children are fluent in both codes, but that working class children are confined to the restricted code, and are then displace at a distinct disadvantage, because teachers use the elaborated code. Middle class children are therefore more likely to understand the teacher, and be understood themselves and consequently achieve more in school.Marxists would generally argue that equality is impossible in a class-based society. As with functionalists, there is a belief in the link between education and the economy however, unlike functionalists who see the link as a positive one, which serves to benefit industrial society for Marxists, the education system exists in order to mould children into their class-defined roles in order to benefit capitalist society, thus it serves the bourgeoisie well and keeps the proletariat down.Other factors inside the classroom can also determine educational succe ss or failure. For example, concepts of labeling theory and self-fulfilling prophecy. These rely on the notion that if person is labeled in a particular way, others will respond to their doings in terms of that label, and the person will act in terms of that label, resulting in a self-fulfilling prophecy. This was illustrated in a study by Rosenthal Jacobson, who selected a random sample of 20 pupils to take an IQ test and told the pupils teachers that they could be expected to present a significant understanding development. After a year, the same pupils were re-tested and generally gained higher IQ scores. Rosenthal and Jacobson said that this improvement had occurred not just due to intellectual development, but because the children had been labelled in such a way that the teachers would have higher expectations of them, which they believed influenced pupilsperformance a self-fulfilling prophecy took place pupils were expected to achieve more, so they did.Similarly, in a s tudy by R.C. Rist of kindergarten children, it appeared that teachers are more likely to perceive middle class children as being of higher ability than working class children (their class being judged by their appearance, use of language and previousencounters the teachers may have had with the childs parents), and treats them as such. He was also able to show, in retentiveness with Rosenthal Jacobsons study, that the children classified as being of higher ability performed better throughout their time in education. This suggests that because of labeling by teachers, working classchildren may be placed at a distinct disadvantage.In separate studies, Lacey and Hargreves examined the effects of streaming in schools, as was used in the tri-partite system in Britain in the stick out war period, and found that children from working class backgrounds were more likely to be placed in lower ability streams. They also found that in these classes, the children were denied high-quality lea rn and knowledge, and that the teachers spent more time controlling behavior than teaching the class. This works to disadvantage those in the lower ability streams, thus, disadvantaging those from working class backgrounds.It is worth pointing out, however, that no(prenominal) of these studies examined why teachers labeled working class students in this manner. As previously mentioned, the fact that most teachers are from middle class backgrounds themselves would seem to influence their exposure of working class children such personal preconceptions are unavoidably brought to the classroom, instantly putting working class children at an unfavorable disadvantage to their middle class peers.However, it should also be mentioned that the methodology used in these studies has been brought into question. The afore mentioned study by Rosenthal Jacobson in particular was criticized. Neither researcher had been present in the period that they suggested the teacher would have reacted more encouragingly towards the pupils, saidto culminate in the self fulfilling prophecy, meaning that the behavior of the teachers was mere speculation on the part of Rosenthal Jacobson. Also, the quality of the tests they used was doubted, suggestions being make that their tests were of dubious quality and were improperly administered. (Haralambos and Holborn, Sociology Themes and Perspectives, 1995, Pg.764).Unfortunately such accusations are often unavoidable in sociological research. Restrictions on funding, time etcetera can often mean that lengthy research cannot be carried out in depth, resulting in, as in the case of the Rosenthal Jacobson experiment, the researchers perhaps returning after a period to do further examinations, often having to choice but to make inferences about certain behaviors or actions. Ethical problems also place restrictions on just about sociological research again, in the case of Rosenthal Jacobson, it could be said to be unethical to tamper with su ch an important thing as achilds education. It may have had positive results for the children in this case, but what if researchers wanted to prove that self fulfilling prophesies are also applicable in reverse that if a child is though of badly, then they will behave badly? Such experiments undoubtedly have ethical implications yet the experiments themselves are important in sociology. How can society be studied without interaction with society? There are other ways in which research can be carried out participants can be made aware of all aspects and implications of the experiment. However, this can cause an altered reaction in participants they can become too aware of observations being carried out and modify their behavior accordingly. The sociological researcher must be aware of the possible difficulties and make a decision on whether or not the research should be carried out.through and through the studies and perspectives we have considered, it is undoubtedly the case that class division exists within the education system and even functionalists would not disagree that schools serve to reinforce such inequalities. It is in what harm or good thesedamages do to society that sociologists must be concerned with. From what we have discussed here, it seems that there are many different explanations of class-based differences in educational success the factors attributed to causing inequality in other areas can also be applied here. The reasons for class-based differences in education areundoubtedly complex, as we have looked at here, and so it is difficult to determine a root cause.