Q. Evaluate the view that education system is meritocratic in the MIS.

(28)

The modern industrial society comprises modern methods of education that seek
to teach formal academic knowledge as well as norms to children and adults. The
education system in other words, is the most important institution of secondary
socialization. Meritocracy, which refers to equality of opportunity for every
individual based on their talents and abilities and irrespective of factors like class,
gender and ethnicity is known to be a key feature of the education system, as
argued by the proposition of this debate.

Where many schools of thought namely, functionalism, social democracy and

Neo-liberalism believe so, others like Marxism, Feminism and Postmodernism
argue in favor of the contrary. This makes the statement of the question
controversial therefore, a matter of sociological debate.

Functionalists agree that the education system is meritocratic. As a general

outlook, they see the role of education as significantly constructive for people of
all social backgrounds as it is a tool of social solidarity and cohesion and as
contributing significantly to economic growth.

According to Emile Durkheim, a pre-eminent functionalist, education does this

through several ‘key’ functions. Firstly, through the transmission of societal norms
and values, social solidarity and cohesion is maintained. When this eases mental
and physical coexistence between different social groups, personal goals take the
lead. Secondly, he views school as a miniature society that pushes everyone to
conform to the same rules and regulations thus putting them on an equal ground.
Thirdly, it teaches pupils the skills, knowledge and expertise needed for future
occupational goals. It does this through the systematic provision of general skills
like punctuality, diligence, and concentration along with specific skills particularly
related to the occupation example, physics for space engineering.

However, he is criticized by Hangreaves who argues that education does not

completely succeed in the transmission of norms and values, rather solidifies the
ideals of social hierarchy in a capitalist society. As a consequence of the lack of
emphasis on teamwork, and the active role of jealousy he also sees the skills
taught as having no essence in the practical world.

Another prominent functionalist, Talcott Parsons, comes to concord with

Durkheim and believes that the education system impartially preaches necessary
values and standards referred to as ‘universalistic values’. It is fair because it
prepares all pupils to fit into their respective roles through the provision of
effective skill sets thus causing an effective and efficient allocation of people into
society thus being meritocratically ‘fashioned’.

However, he is criticized by Bourdieu who argues that the education system does
not provide equal opportunity since those with financial alacrity have money to
afford private tuitions and get a head-start or perform better than the
economically underprivileged. This is proved as there is a higher proportion of
upper-class children in prestigious universities. Another reasons highlights the
lack of educational resources available to students from working class
backgrounds, curtailing their potentials. On the whole the socio-economic polarity
between the upper and lower classes us too great to argue that the working class
have equal opportunities to perform as well as middle and ruling classes or that
society is meritocratic.

Furthermore, Davis and Moore brought about ‘the principle of stratification’,

arguing that role allocation takes place through the ‘fair’ system of exams making
the education system unable to hold any prejudice or bias against social groups.
This shows that the education system works upon an effective meritocratic basis
which ensures that the most talented end up at functionally important positions
with rewards.

Howbeit, Collins criticizes them because education does not act as a neutral sieve
that gives everyone an equal chance. It becomes more about ‘who you know’
than ‘what you know’ when people of the upper classes use their social capital to
gain important positions easily or without effort which others have to struggle for.

Into the bargain, Social Democrats support the view that the education system is
meritocratic. They challenged the idea of a divided educational system post-WW2
and endorsed a cohesive one. The pre-1960’s educational system was divided into
three hierarchical braches; grammar schools for the most intelligent followed by
modern secondary and technical schools. The reformed education system of
Halsey known as the ‘comprehensive school system’ which is argued to be
inclusive of people of all social backgrounds allows each student to begin on a
similar basis and the government to spend its capital efficiently instead of wasting
valuable resources on three dysfunctional branches.

However, Wolf criticizes this view through his conclusion from a wide ranging
study on government funding and economic benefits of education systems in
thirteen countries, where he argues that governments should not spend more on
education. He compared the inputs and outcomes of Swiss and Egyptian
education systems to find that Switzerland had better outcomes. Whereas Egypt
spent 8.7% of its GDP on education systems Switzerland spent only 4.6%. thus it is
the quality of education produced which is vital instead of a highly funded
‘cohesive educational system’.

Withal, the New Right, a political and economic theory following the conservative
principles of Thatcherism also see the education system as meritocratic. They
understand every individual’s duty to contribute to the economy, where the
education system teaches people the skills required for the highly competitive job
market.

Chubb and Moe argue that the marketization or privatization of the educational
system is beneficial to all social groups. They argue that schools must create
league tables which are based on the results of standardized testing which will
ensure healthy competition between educational institutions striving to produce
efficient pupils to fit occupational roles. This is how the privatized education
system allows pupils to gain corporate skills thereby increasing their life chances.

They are criticized by Bowles who argues that in a privatized education system the
middle class is always at an advantage due to its financial privilege example the
working class may not be able to afford institutions at the top of the league
tables. Barlett and Grand further argue that league tables may result in
institutions being oversubscribed which lead to schools choosing students than
parents choosing schools.

Additionally, Professor Goldthorpe at Oxford conducted the Nuffield College

Research which further legitimized the view that the education system benefits all
social groups and is meritocratic. He studied ten thousand men and their past and
present class backgrounds and concluded that there was an increasingly high rate
of ‘absolute social mobility’ or the total amount of mobility in society was quite
high.

However, it has been denounced by Crompton who argues that occupational

roles are not comparable overtime as their status keeps fluctuating. For an
example, a clerical worker at the dawn of the 19th century had a different status
to a clerical worker of the 1970s. Nevertheless, Goldthorpe rebutted by arguing
that while working and market conditions fluctuate overtime their economic
position remains the same. In his classification he did not focus upon occupational
levels rather on what the occupation entailed.

This brings us to the end of the comprehensive ‘for-side’ of this debate. On the
contrary, as mentioned earlier there are many schools of thought which disagree
with the statement of the question.

Marxism is one of them. Marxism sees society as built up of a conflict of interest

between the bourgeoisies (ruling class) and the proletariat (working class), where
the education system is a capitalist weapon built to serve the former. Education
makes one ‘smart enough to run machines but not smart enough to challenge the
system’, a concept known as ‘conformists automata’.

Althusser argues that the education system basically reproduces a sufficient and
obedient labour force. Teachers ‘transform pupil consciousness’ by encouraging
them to accept ‘the realities of life’; that the workplace is unequal and their likely
future positions. Vocational education has advantages for the elite class as it
eliminates competition from the working class at higher levels of education and
makes the working class look as if they have chosen their fate. Althusser also sees
the education system as an ideological state apparatus which exercises
consensual power through transforming pupil ideology. It trains pupils to
subjugated and exploited or ‘jugged and mugged’, without questioning the status
quo.

Despite the above, Althusser himself stated that his ideas provided a very general
framework for an analysis of education with little evidence to prove them. In his
world, people are ‘cultural dopes’ unquestionably accepting the dominant
ideology. Further, Elliott criticizes him for his ideas having ‘no sense of the politics
of ideological struggle’.

In addition to the above, Bowles and Gintis were Marxist economists who
believed that the role of education was to produce labour power. They use the
forms of interpersonal behavior schooling teaches and the personality it fosters to
prove this argument in their ‘correspondence theory’ from their study ‘Schooling
in capitalist America’. A hardworking, obedient force is produced in three ways.
Firstly, submission to authority is taught when children have little control over
what they study and how. Next, external rewards like wages or promotions aim at
motivating people since their work gives them little intrinsic satisfaction. Thirdly,
it legitimizes inequality by making the education system look like a meritocracy
where people at the highest financial positions deserve it because of their hard
work (which isn’t true because educational attainment is related to family
background).

However, they are criticized by Hikoks, who argues that they are wrong to suggest
that schools are comparable with the capitalist economy. This is because the
education system of the UK is considerably older than the industrial revolution.

Another school of thought is Feminism which sees society as patriarchal, made up

of a conflict of interest between men and women. They argue that the education
system maintains this monopoly of power through incorporating patriarchal
values and making sure men have the skillset for the best financial positions.
Acker sees that women’s social position is hidden as social mobility studies
categorise women into classes of their male partners.
However, Abrantes and Abrantes criticize her by saying that social mobility need
to focus on the class rather than gender.

The idea of the gendered curriculum indicates that girls and boys choose different
subjects. As Self and Zealey note, more women study subjects related to medicine
and more men study business, engineering and technology subjects. Warrington
and Younger also find that male and female career aspirations often reflect
traditional gender stereotypes, such as childcare and nursing for females. This
results in women not ending up in well-paid jobs despite consistently
outperforming males at all levels in the education system. The education system
may encourage this through gender stereotyping within the curriculum for an
example men are likely to be shown playing active roles. Teachers may see males
as better suited to science subjects which may be reflected by pupils’ subject
choices.

However, in the modern industrial society, attitudes are rapidly changing and
there are more girls taking up STEM subjects than ever before.

In the end, the proposition of the question is true, as is fairly obvious. In the
modern industrial society educational institutions including private ones take into
account people’s socio-economic background and offer the economically
underprivileged scholarships, easier admission criteria or other incentives. An
example is that of a Pakistani student from a semi-urban area in Punjab who was
recognized at Harvard and studies at Harvard University as a full-time student.
Although Postmodernists deny the existence of a ‘perfect’ education system it
comes down to who is teachings and a pupil’s personal capabilities. Therefore,
the education system is meritocratic and academic hard work is well-known to
lead to upwards social mobility.