Social Inequality in Education

Introduction

As stated by Nelson Mandela “Education is the most powerful weapon, which you can use to change the world.” Fundamentally, education has growth into key aspects in attainment of individual and social goals, aims, and bettering one’s and collective lives and importantly turning dreams into realities. Sociologists perceive society as a stratified system structured by privilege, wealth, and hierarchy of power that has lead and increasing social inequality. As illustrated by Grusky (2018) and Doob (2015), social inequality is bounded by ethnicity, gender, religion, and economic status (bring social classes). It is characterised by presence of uneven and unequal of opportunities as well as reward systems availed to people of different social groups (Grusky, 2018; Goldthorpe, 2017; Lareau, 2015). Studies within sociology have argued two ideologies towards social inequalities namely Marxists and functionalists. Unlike fundamentalists who believe education system is meritocratic perceiving the work and effort exert is directly associable to rewards achieved, Marxists posits education as a struggle between the lower, middle, and upper class based on economic components (Hurst et al., 2016; Raudenbush, & Eschmann, 2015).

Broadly, social inequalities describe the extent to which difference among social group exists. Reports from empirical studies indicate in detail life expectancy, poverty, unemployment, morbidity, and mortality as key attribute associated to disparities in social spectrum (Singh, & Siahpush, 2016; Williams et al., 2016). As argued by Amin (2014) and Marable (2015), although society should strive and promote equality, attaining a complete equal society in capitalistic ideological environment is near impossible. Arguably, the extent to which perceived inequality is present in a society should be matter of concern rather that presence of inequality itself. In this light, worrying components should be gap size between the least and most affluent members in a given society. Ideally, this view point should be applicable to education systems and in learning environment. Based on views held by Apple (2012) and Ward (2013), in most societies, if not all, education is perceived as agent that unlocks everyone’s potential in a society has failure to do so seen as insufficient in delivering quality across the board.

Despite numerous attempts and approaches taken by government and social organizations structured to reinvigorate education system particularly poverty invested areas aimed at raising aspirations, diversifying, and educational sector to accommodate those from lower social class, research have increasing shown limitation and flawed aspects of the approach. Existing studies have argued in the prospect of widespread consensus indicating a growing elite nationally and internationally who are rich and powerful with access to political power and policy makers (DiPrete, & Jennings, 2012; Martins, & Veiga, 2010). As such, being in position to influence legal, social, and policies within social avenues and at national spectrum in their favour. Ideally, these lead to concentration of opportunities, wealth, and income to only few affluent while very few less affluent individuals receives shared resources or opportunity (Perry, & Francis, 2010). According to London School of Economics and Political Science (2017), the greatly cause of disparities is accumulation of wealth at the top distribution chain including concentrating private wealth and privileges at small elites whereas the poor and less affluent individuals receives less dividend in term of shared resources ranging from educational resources, wealth, quality of services, and opportunities.

Educational achievement of underprivileged children

The disparities in education sector are apparent at early years dating back to early childhood in preparation and readiness to joining schooling. According to National Equality Panel (2010) and reported by BBC (2010), at the age three, children from poor background settings lag those from affluent families in communication by a year but wrongly in some areas approximately 50% of these disadvantaged children begin primary schooling without adequate language and communication skills. Cassen & Kingdon (2007) and Burke (2013) reflected that inequalities in education system widen as one progress particularly at compulsory stages. Studies conducted by Sodha and Margo (2010), National Equality Panel (2010), and Lupton et al. (2009), highlighted an overwhelmingly linked of education attainment in the UK to parental backgrounds that include occupation, qualifications, and income.

The former secretary of education Michael Gove stated “rich, thick kids” perform better that those from poor backgrounds but clever. Although the comments were widely criticised due to language structure, there is an extensive agreement with the message with many researchers, sociologist, and practitioners in the sector posit a clear link between educational achievement and socio-economic status (Shelton, 2015; Paton, 2010). According to Perry and Francis (2010), the three largest political parties in the country (Conservative, Labour, and Liberal Democrats parties) identified gap in even growing social gap for education attainment as area that need to be addressed by setting up adequate policies. Statistically, inequality grounded on income, opportunities, and wealth between generations, regions, and wealth in the UK has been widening worsening in the past decade (Cable, 2017). Studies has demonstrated an increasing gulf between the more and less influent in the country terming the phenomena self-perpetuating across generations brought by inherited components, advantages, and disadvantages passed down each successive generation (The Independent, 2017; Strand, 2014). England (2017) claimed that negatively affected cohort have high likelihood remaining in similar state despite changes in country’s economic status or progress in social elements such as education, poverty level, and occupation. Andersson and Malmberg (2015) observed that families who can afford to live in best neighbourhood in term availability social amenities, quality education, and security is because their parents did or pay for better quality education (mostly private) where tuition and facilities are not underfunded or overstretched (discipline and standards are not quite adhered to or followed).

The findings by Blanden and Machin (2013) on educational inequality and expansion of higher education in the UK posit it expansion has failed to include individuals from poor and rich backgrounds at equal proportion rather benefiting those from richer setting more at disproportionate manner. It further argued that although gap existed before, expansion acted as agent of widening the disparity between the rich and poor in accessing higher education. These findings were collaborated by research and studies conducted by Boliver (2011) and Burke (2013) illustrating that diversification and massification in higher education failed to reflect social structure demonstrating persistent patterns of under-representation. According to Department for Education (2015), children eligible for free schools meals (sign of lower social class where eligibility is determined by receipt of income-related benefits (income below £16,000) show less likelihood of attaining good academic results and proceeding to higher education and subsequently struggling throughout their lives (low paying occupation, low income, and less affluent neighbourhood. Ultimately, these results in widening social inequality cycle.

Numerical statistics of misrepresentation in education system

It evident that education quality in the country varies significantly across the country depending on socio-economic status of respective communities. As illustrated by Cassen and Kingdon (2007), free meals at schools are a key indicator of socio-economic backgrounds. The Department for Children, Schools, and Families (2009) showed that 53.5% of the pupils at Key Stage 2 proceed with the education to their expected level in mathematics and English a huge disparity in comparison with those who are not eligible (75.5%). Similarly, these pupils from deprived background are more likely to attend less-performing schools. Moreover, there are likely to have been from social care program or needing special education needs. A study conducted by University of Oxford focusing on degree to which graduate earnings is depended on one background within the socioeconomic inequalities in education achievement and students’ outcomes found that those into labour market for approximately 10 years show a significant disparity between those from advantaged and disadvantaged families (Ali, 2016). The findings indicate graduates from higher income families had median earnings approximately 25% more than their counterparts in low incomes (ibid). Education Policy Institute (2017), found that although progress has been made to close disparity gap, the disadvantaged students were more than 19 months behind their peers in 2013. The process of eliminating these inequalities is relative slow making the Institute to suggest that it could take approximately 50 years before attainment of equitable education system (ibid).

Furthermore, examining the relationship between students achievement and socio-economic background among 15-year-old from 30 different countries, Marks et al. (2006) indicated that educational differentiation that include types of schools and tracking have a significant influence on achievement-background relations. It stated that over 60% of the effect related to socio-economic background on one performance quality of services provided by respective schools measured by monitoring in and type of schools. In the UK, Sodha and Margo (2010) asserted that 49% of pupils from disadvantaged families indicated likelihood of applying into higher education (university) in comparison to 77% from rich background. Worryingly, a mere 4% of those eligible for free meals at age 15 years advanced their education into university level whereas 33% of their peers continued (Harris, 2010). Despite such prestigious universities as Cambridge and Oxford having access schemes designed to enhance intake of students from low income and disadvantaged families, significant low number apply resulting in only 12.6% and 11.5% intake rate for working class respectively (Davies, 2010).

In measuring achievement of disadvantaged students on their academic performance based on Free School Meals (FSM), Hobbs & Vignoles (2010) exemplified that pupils eligible for FSM lag their peers by 30% and subsequently, 33.5% achieved 5A*-C in GCSE in comparison to 60.5% of other students. Furthermore, the report indicate 36.5% of students from low income families achieved 5A*-C while their peers attained 64.0% in subject that include mathematics and English an indication of 27.4% difference. Statistics from the UK Department for Education documented between 2010 and 2015 showed that 37.9% of disadvantaged students got 5 GCSEs (A*-C including mathematics and English) in 2013 while 64.6% of those who did not qualify achieving similar results (Department for Education, 2016). Report by Ofsted (2013) found disparities in achievement between students eligible for FSM and those not from as early as Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) with 26 gaps in the two groups.

In similar perspective, the 2011/12 statistic from London borough indicated that students living in Westminster region had a high academic achievement of 86.6% in comparison to their peers from Newham who scored average of 79.1% (GLA economics, 2917). It is notable that both borough are located in London but separated by socio-economic class factors affecting educational achievement. Similarly, survey report from Institute of Education University of London demonstrated that students whose parent(s) held managerial or professional jobs were at least 8 months in term of academic performance in relation to those with unemployed or with casual employment (UCL Institute of Education, 2018).

Broadly, pupils from middle (working class) have been noted to express more economic hardship compared with other groups in the sense that they tend to experience deprivation in in material such as monetary and academic key amenities (books, pens, desks, and tuition fees) hence sources of underachievement (the Guardian, 2013; Green et al., 2011). Although it is believed middle class children receive adequate support, encouragement, and conducive environment for academic achievement and grounds for success in life from their parents from early years but sociologist rebuke this notion arguing that middle class parent do not fully understand the needs of their children to succeed in education. Moreover, attitudes of these parents towards practitioners and education providers are attributable to underachievement.

Educational theories and concepts

In his empirical and theoretical work on relations between social culture and education achievement, French sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu, asserted that it is grounded on education pattern and structure emanating from early years (home) way back before starting schooling and later enforced by schools through its designed education approach (Grenfell, & James, 2003; Harker et al., 2016). According to Bourdieu and Nice (1977), one surrounding at early up bring and home bounded by “cultural capital” defined by distinctive taste, view, and beliefs towards art, literature, and values of the immediate society member including parents and friends has a significant influence in development of particular view, mind-set, and attitude towards the world. In essence, these early distinctive ‘habitus’ holds a crucial directive on individual mind-set and attitude cultivated and inculcated by social and cultural norms and values (Barrett, & Martina, 2012; Olivier, 2017). Furthermore, he posit that such attributes make it considerably difficult for individual from certain cohort to admitted into certain learning institution or, if admitted, in succeeding in such schools whether public or private (elite) where students from different socio-economic backgrounds attended schooling.

On the other hand, Basil Bernstein proposed sociolinguistic theory describe grouping or categorizing principles coding of language and their restrictions. According to Atkinson (2014) and Stubbs (2012), it depicts the language pattern used by a set of people in their respective daily activities and conversation. Bernstein held that language used by people in a given social setting reflects and shapes beliefs, values, and assumptions by certain social group (Atkinson, 2014). Similarly, the relationship established within that group setting has substantial effect on language use as well as speech pattern. Building from the concepts of restricted theory by Bernstein, Bernstein (1972) communication pattern generalise and reinforces certain attributes and values perceive important by given community and environment. Elaborating Bernstein ideas, Williams (2013) suggested that the use of language within given societal class influence the way people perceive, assign, and purport significance and meaning of what they are speaking about that include learning their place and identity. Bernstein assertion on relation of restricted or elaborated code where the former has less formal sentence structure while latter has more complicated but well laid thoughts and detailed in communication and social class construes that different classes in a society have access to different code learned through socialization process promoted by roles and values (Atkinson, 2014; Williams, 2013). For instance, middle class in a society has access to both codes (restricted and elaborated) due to being culturally, socially, and geographically mobile.

Building from Bourdieu, Reay et al. (2010) stated that the tendency of schools to favour admitting students from higher-class ‘habitus’, it highlight shrewdness in education system that promotes and legitimatises inequality and class differences. Ideally, the framework of Bourdieu thinking lies is grounded on argument that cultural aspects that include reading, concert-going, or museum visits as well as preference in literature or specific leisure activity is largely associable to educational levels. Similarly, as asserted by Andersen & Hansen (2011) and Reay et al. (2010) relationship between formal schooling and social backgrounds differ in accordance to the recognition and promotion of difference cultures by education system. In contrast, education system in the UK ascribes to individual talents and effort while down playing the role of cultural and habitus perceiving failure and success in education system as elements of students’ social attribute.

Conclusion

Sociologists perceive subcultural beliefs, norms, and values affect severely the academic attainment. These subculture position working class parents to accept phenomena and situation but exert no effort doing nothing for change or improve it. Existing studies have extensively indicated that parents have mentally of present-time fixated on current situation with no plan or sacrifice for the future. In contrast, upper class individual (upper middle class) perceives things differently attributable to change in attitude and perception towards education and learning environment and facilities. One can argued that these difference between middle and working class purview and culture sets the presence or lack of enthusiasm, attitude, and mind-set to success for their respective children. Here, if one lacking higher-class habitus and cultural elements perform better in education system, it perceived as a corroboration of claimed meritocratic features and subsequently strengthening the systems as such individuals are admitted and assimilated into higher socio-economic status continuing the social stratification. The perception held by Bourdieu on education has had a significant influence on analysing and addressing the issues affecting students’ learning such as cultural knowledge and involvement in extra-cultural activities in attempt to raise one chance of admission into higher education.

Broadly, concept forwarded by Bourdieu gives particular attention to issues of structure, cultural autonomy, promoted school culture, and agency and habitus. It outlines that culture of the powerful, rich, and most affluent in a society acts as a basis to which legitimate culture id grounded and promoted in education and learning environment. Ideally, students who have inculcated such ideology and cultural aspect from their early years demonstrate high probability of success academically and subsequently later in their lives. In the UK, research has demonstrated that social class whether measured by parents’ wealth, occupation, or education level has a significant influence on educational outcome. In general, socio-economic status encompassing one’s income, social class, financial security, and educational attainment are not limited to quality of attributes but also privileges available to social members. Largely, it has affects individuals mental and physical as it directly correlates to poverty, lower educational achievement, poor health, and uneven distribution of resources. In attempt to curb the problem of social inequality, the country has strived towards setting platforms that allows underprivileged social groups towards realising their dreams and potential. As a solution to the problem, recently, perspective has shifted to adoption of more holistic and collaborative model seeking to take into account the young people, view, experiences, and transition into workplace.

References

Amin, S. (2014). Capitalism in the age of globalization: The management of contemporary society. Zed Books Ltd.

Andersen, P. L., & Hansen, M. N. (2011). Class and cultural capital—The case of class inequality in educational performance. European sociological review, 28(5), 607-621.

Andersson, E. K., & Malmberg, B. (2015). Contextual effects on educational attainment in individualised, scalable neighbourhoods: Differences across gender and social class. Urban Studies, 52(12), 2117-2133.

Apple, M. W. (2012). Can education change society?. In Can Education Change Society? (pp. 11-32). Routledge.

Atkinson, P. (2014). Language, Structure and Reproduction (Routledge Revivals): An Introduction to the Sociology of Basil Bernstein. Routledge.

Barrett, B. D., & Martina, C. A. (2012). Towards a Non-deterministic Reading of Pierre Bourdieu: habitus and educational change in urban schools. Policy Futures in Education, 10(3), 249-262.

Bernstein, B. (1972). Social class, language and socialization. Language and social context, 157-178.

Blanden, J., & Machin, S. (2013). Educational inequality and the expansion of UK higher education. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 60(5), 578-596.

Boliver, V. (2011). Expansion, differentiation, and the persistence of social class inequalities in British higher education. Higher education, 61(3), 229-242.

Bourdieu, P., & Nice, R. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice(Vol. 16). Cambridge: Cambridge university press.

Burke, P. J. (2013). The right to higher education: Beyond widening participation. Routledge.

Cassen, R., & Kingdon, G. (2007). Tackling low educational achievement. Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

DiPrete, T. A., & Jennings, J. L. (2012). Social and behavioral skills and the gender gap in early educational achievement. Social Science Research, 41(1), 1-15.

Doob, C. (2015). Social inequality and social stratification in US society. Routledge.

England, P. (2017). Households, employment, and gender: A social, economic, and demographic view. Routledge.

GLA economics (2017). London’s socio-economic issues. Economic Evidence Base for London 2016. London.

Goldthorpe, J. H. (2017). Social inequality and social integration. In Social Policy and Public Policy (pp. 32-40). Routledge.

Green, A., Mason, G., & Unwin, L. (2011). Education and inequality: introduction. National Institute Economic Review, 215(1), R1-R5.

Grenfell, M., & James, D. (2003). Bourdieu and education: Acts of practical theory. Routledge.

Grusky, D. B. (2018). Social stratification: Class, race, and gender in sociological perspective. Routledge.

Harker, R., Mahar, C., & Wilkes, C. (Eds.). (2016). An introduction to the work of Pierre Bourdieu: The practice of theory. Springer.

Hobbs, G., & Vignoles, A. (2010). Is children’s free school meal ‘eligibility’a good proxy for family income?. British Educational Research Journal, 36(4), 673-690.

Houston, S. (2002). Reflecting on habitus, field and capital: Towards a culturally sensitive social work. Journal of Social Work, 2(2), 149-167.

Hurst, C. E., Gibbon, H. M. F., & Nurse, A. M. (2016). Social inequality: Forms, causes, and consequences. Routledge.

Lareau, A. (2015). Cultural knowledge and social inequality. American Sociological Review, 80(1), 1-27.

Lupton, R. (2004). Schools in disadvantaged areas: recognising context and raising quality.

Lupton, R., Heath, N., & Salter, E. (2009). Education: New Labour’s top priority. Towards a more equal society, 71-90.

Marable, M. (2015). How capitalism underdeveloped Black America: Problems in race, political economy, and society. Haymarket Books.

Marks, G. N., Cresswell, J., & Ainley, J. (2006). Explaining socioeconomic inequalities in student achievement: The role of home and school factors. Educational research and Evaluation, 12(02), 105-128.

Martins, L., & Veiga, P. (2010). Do inequalities in parents’ education play an important role in PISA students’ mathematics achievement test score disparities?. Economics of Education Review, 29(6), 1016-1033.

Ofsed (2013). Unseen children: access and achievement 20 years on Evidence report. raising the standards improving lives. London: the Crown.

Olivier, B. (2017). Bourdieu, Rancière, Inequality and Education. Koers: Bulletin for Christian Scholarship= Koers: Bulletin vir Christelike Wetenskap, 82(1), 1-15.

Raudenbush, S. W., & Eschmann, R. D. (2015). Does schooling increase or reduce social inequality?. Annual Review of Sociology, 41, 443-470.

Reay, D., Crozier, G., & Clayton, J. (2010). ‘Fitting in’or ‘standing out’: Working‐class students in UK higher education. British Educational Research Journal, 36(1), 107-124.

Singh, G. K., & Siahpush, M. (2016). Inequalities in US life expectancy by area unemployment level, 1990–2010. Scientifica, 2016.

Sodha, S., & Margo, J. (2010). A generation of disengaged children is waiting in the wings. London: Demos.

Strand, S. (2014). School effects and ethnic, gender and socio-economic gaps in educational achievement at age 11. Oxford Review of Education, 40(2), 223-245.

Stubbs, M. (2012). Language, Schools and Classrooms (RLE Edu L Sociology of Education). Routledge.

Wells, R. S., & Lynch, C. M. (2012). Delayed college entry and the socioeconomic gap: Examining the roles of student plans, family income, parental education, and parental occupation. The Journal of Higher Education, 83(5), 671-697.

Williams, D. R., Mohammed, S. A., Leavell, J., & Collins, C. (2010). Race, socioeconomic status, and health: complexities, ongoing challenges, and research opportunities. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1186(1), 69-101.

Williams, F. (Ed.). (2013). Language and poverty: Perspectives on a theme. Elsevier.