paper
annyzyl123
lecturenote1.pptxEDS/SOC 126
Week 4, Monday
1
Reminders
Investigative Assignment #1 due this Wednesday on TritonEd via Turnitin by 4pm.
Bring a copy to class (electronic or hard copy)
2
Review: Functionalist Theory
Functionalist theory on the role of education in society.
Also called:
Technical theory
Structural-functional theory
Technical-meritocratic theory
BOWLES AND GINTIS CALL THE THEORY TECHNICAL-MERITOCRATIC
3
Functionalists’ Theoretical Claims
Societies with class systems have dominant cultural norms about accepted modes of upward mobility
Primary function of schools is to perpetuate these dominant cultural norms and prepare children for adult work roles in an economically stratified society
U.S. dominant cultural norm? Contest mobility – an open contest in which people compete for a few prizes (dominant status symbols – money, fame, material objects, credentials)
The contest is fair in that personal motivation and effort are the keys to winning and not favoritism or special treatment
Societal norms shape education; education is framed as an opportunity equally available to all
Yet, success depends on students’ motivation and effort (goes back to function of schools)
Schools sort students according to differences in school performance
Differences in ability/intelligence are correlated with economic background, which explains differences in student achievement. Intelligence is inherited and generationally passed down
4
Functionalists’ Theoretical Claims
How do schools sort students through their performance? Socialization in classrooms: 1) teaches children to commit to the values of society and 2) motivates children to aspire to certain positions in society.
Children are socialized through a system of rewards and punishments for their academic performance and behavior (e.g., grades, praise, special treatment, taking away privileges, public criticism or humiliation).
Components of achievement: 1) cognitive – skills, information, knowledge, 2) moral – character, citizenship, deportment, demeanor, behavior, work habits.
Teachers’ reward systems can blur the boundaries between cognitive and moral aspects of achievement, e.g., a “good” or “smart” student is also seen as well-behaved.
5
Functionalists’ Logic on Inequality in Society
Natural born talent/ability or intellect is always unevenly distributed across society
Because economic success is correlated with intellect, economic inequality is natural in society
Society needs structures or institutions that can accommodate all levels of ability
6
Functionalists’ Logic on Inequality in Society
The structure of education must prepare all individuals for a position in society that fits their intellect
Sorting students into different kinds of education (academic vs vocational) is providing equal opportunity
Given the above, it’s not surprising that low-income students tend to perform below middle class students
7
Carol Dweck, “Fixed Mindsets vs. Growth Mindsets”
Professor of Psychology at Stanford University
She has studied why students succeed in school and how to foster their success by focusing on the mindsets of students
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X0mgOOSpLU
8
Conflict Theorists on the Role of Education in Society: Bowles & Gintis reading
Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis are economists in the Marxist tradition; groundbreaking work in the sociology of education
Dominant cultural norms about individual ability and success unfairly influence education to protect the interests of the elite or dominant groups
The primary function of education is to legitimize economic inequality among groups (“normalize” inequality)
9
Conflict Theorists’ Critique of Functionalists’ Claims (Bowles & Gintis)
Economic inequality is not necessary or natural; it does not serve the greater good of society
Inequality maintains relations of power for a subgroup of society; inequality preserves status, privilege, wealth of dominant groups
The “egalitarian objectives” of education are in conflict with its integrative function in society (preparing children to take on adult roles)
10
Conflict Theorists’ Critique of Functionalists’ Claims (Bowles & Gintis)
Schools do socialize children and achievement is a key part of socialization as the functionalists claim
Schools prepare children for an unequal workforce by mirroring the power relationships in the work place
“Correspondence principle” – the idea that relationships in schools and classrooms directly correspond or mirror relationships in the work place (boss/worker = teacher/student)
11
Conflict Theorists’ Critique of Functionalists’ Claims
Socialization in classrooms uses the meritocratic ideology to justify differences in achievement
Ideology as values, attitudes, beliefs used to justify the current state of things, to make the current state of affairs seem natural
Meritocratic ideology says that individuals regardless of ability have an equal chance to compete for rewards in school and in life. Results of competition due to innate talent and motivation.
Façade of merit – rewards in school, such as grades, teacher praise or special treatment are not solely based on intelligence or cognitive skills and internal motivation that functionalists talk about as the main indicators of educational success and economic success
12
Conflict Theorists’ Critique of Functionalists’ Views
Rewards in schools are largely based on beliefs about students’ economic futures:
Wilcox research showed the connection between teachers’ values and behaviors and the expectations of employers in different work settings. For example:
Huntington Elementary (upper-middle class) emphasized student reasoning, negotiation, self-reflection, self-management, problem-solving, and independence
Smith Elementary (lower-middle class) emphasized student obedience to authority, acceptance of directives, compliance to commands, relying on others for decision-making
13
Conflict Theorists’ Critique of Functionalists’ Views
Bowles & Gintis are not dismissing the cognitive aspects of preparing youth for the work world. Yes, schools are responsible for teaching knowledge, skills and information.
The problem is that Functionalists minimize the importance of the “moral components” of achievement. Functionalist views on innate talent hide the fact that economic success is not solely determined by individual ability and motivation.
14
Conflict Theorists’ Critique of Functionalists’ Views
They discuss studies (in great detail):
showing little to no significant relationship between intelligence (IQ) and economic success
showing the benefits of education for everyone across IQ in terms of increasing knowledge and skills
They conclude - education is a better predictor of economic success and not IQ
15
Conflict Theorists: The Role of Schools
Economic success is also determined by “non-cognitive” characteristics – personality traits and general attitudes such as motivation, orientation toward authority, discipline, work ethic.
Schools have a social function for society and the economy – producing youth with certain “non-cognitive” characteristics that fit what employers look for in job applicants.
Socialization in schools and classrooms produces a generalized class consciousness for each generation of working class and poor students; this consciousness prevents any critique or resistance to society in order to transform existing conditions.
16
Conflict Theorists: The Role of Schools
Schools:
socialize students with certain knowledge, attitudes and behaviors to smoothly integrate into the workforce
use the façade of a meritocratic reward system to socialize students to believe that they are solely responsible for their successes and failures
Bowles and Gintis write, “The predatory, competitive, and personally destructive way in which intellectual achievement is rewarded in U.S. schools and colleges is a monument not to creative rationality, but to the need of a privileged class to justify an irrational, exploitive, and undemocratic system,” (pg. 108)
17
Economic Approach to Explain Inequality
Functionalist Theorists
Necessary for society to fill economic positions with qualified individuals.
Serves the “greater good;” natural part of the world.
Schools socialize students to aspire to unequal positions through a selective reward system (moral & cognitive achievement).
Unequal reward system is justified because ability is innate, so schools must gear children toward economic positions that “fit” their ability.
Schools help reproduce economic and class inequality across generations.
Conflict Theorists
Serves the interests of those who benefit the most (those w/ status and power)
Reward system in schools is justified by the façade of the meritocratic ideology
Non-cognitive aspect of achievement and rewards are often more important than the cognitive.
Intelligence, knowledge, and skills alone don’t determine how teachers reward students; beliefs about students’ futures based on their economic background.
Schools socialize students by mirroring hierarchical workplace relationships.
Schools help reproduce economic and class inequality across generations.
18
Wilcox reading, Differential Socialization in the Classroom: Implications for Equal Opportunity
Wilcox, like Lareau, is a researcher who acknowledges inequality exists in society and that education plays an important role
Detailed research on what classroom socialization looks like using two elementary school classrooms – upper-middle class and lower-middle class neighborhoods
Challenges the idea of teacher neutrality in the functionalists’ arguments – that teachers objectively and fairly assess students’ capabilities and learning; teachers are cultural beings shaped by their social context (their upbringing, education, and the school, school district, state contexts)
19
Wilcox reading, Differential Socialization in the Classroom: Implications for Equal Opportunity
Tests out some of Bowles and Gintis’s ideas that schools socialize children from different class groups to be prepared to take jobs similar to their parents.
Focuses on classroom socialization in terms of the cognitive skills students are exposed to and skills in self-presentation.
Classroom observations looked at: 1) the discipline and values taught in the way the teacher controlled the classroom (external vs. internal motivation), 2) the role of the student in the classroom in terms of participation and self-presentation, and 3) how the teacher presented academic material.
20
Wilcox reading, Differential Socialization in the Classroom: Implications for Equal Opportunity
Smith Elementary (lower-middle class) and Huntington Elementary (upper-middle class)
Smith: the classroom was largely “freeform” – children moving all over the room, doing different activities fun and academic. There was a high level of noise. Class time varied between group work and individual work at tables. Children had lots of free time to play in class
Huntington: the classroom was quiet and orderly with traditional rows of individual desks. Students mostly worked individually on academic work. Student to student interaction was rare. The teacher stated interaction prevents students from producing high-quality work.
21
Wilcox reading, Differential Socialization in the Classroom: Implications for Equal Opportunity
Smith: external mode of control was most dominant. The teacher is the sole authority. Students follow rules on what to do and how to behave set by the teacher.
One common teacher strategy was using commands: “I want that done now” or “You have an assignment; sit down and get busy.”
Second common strategy was using statements of praise or blame: “That’s good” or “No, that’s not right.”
The teacher only used internal control to encourage students to work out conflicts among peers: “You two will have to decide that by yourselves.”
22
Wilcox reading, Differential Socialization in the Classroom: Implications for Equal Opportunity
Huntington: internal mode of control was most dominant. The teacher emphasizes students’ responsibility for their academic work and learning.
One common teacher strategy was to point out the academic implications of behavior. The teacher offered reasons for why their behavior was inappropriate or appropriate leading children to reflect on what they were doing:
“If you’re talking to your neighbor, you’re probably not looking at the clues and remembering what the answers are.”
Other internal control commands: “use your time wisely,” “use good judgment”
Rules for external control were academically oriented (e.g., think for yourself, listen to directions) and the teacher gave reasons why the rules were important to their education
23
Wilcox reading, Differential Socialization in the Classroom: Implications for Equal Opportunity
Self-presentation skills through the “show and tell” activity
Smith: Teacher decided when to have the activity. She saw the activity as fun for the kids, not academic. She rarely made comments or gave instructions on how to present. The activity did not help develop students’ verbal skills.
Huntington: Every day began with the activity. The teacher saw the activity as purely academic and an opportunity to review academic material in the follow up questions she asked students. She also provided feedback about how to give a presentation.
24
Wilcox reading, Differential Socialization in the Classroom: Implications for Equal Opportunity
Future vs. present orientation –
Smith: Children were socialized to focus on the present. The teacher had a “let kids be kids” attitude and focused on letting them be first graders. References to second grade were negative: “We’re not getting ready for second grade. This was homework.” “In second grade they don’t teach you printing. That’s why you have to know it now.”
Huntington: Children were socialized to look to the future in positive and hopeful ways.: “You’re thinking like a mathematician. You’ll be a good scientist.” “By Friday you’ll get it without looking.” “Say to yourself, ‘I’m a good reader, because this is a second-grade book.’” The teacher often made references to what will be expected of them the following year in second grade. Students learned to think about future consequences of present actions, and they learned to think of themselves as professional adults.
25
