Analysis of Social Inequality in UK Education PDF

An analysis of social inequality and exclusion within education in the UK Abstract: Education stands as a pivotal platform for human development, yet also stands as one of the most obvious illustrations of social inequality and exclusion. This essay utilises sociological theories to scrutinise the...

An analysis of social inequality and exclusion within education in the UK Abstract: Education stands as a pivotal platform for human development, yet also stands as one of the most obvious illustrations of social inequality and exclusion. This essay utilises sociological theories to scrutinise the evolution and disparities of education illustrated by theorists such as Giddens (2009), Warwick-Booth (2019), Bowles and Gintis (1976), and Halsey (1980). By analysing the education system and its administrative apparatus, it tries to assess whether progression has been made in reducing social inequality and exclusion or if the gap between the privileged and the underprivileged still persists, particularly in primary and higher education settings. Drawing upon theories by Marx and Engels, it focuses on the origins and perpetuation of class disparities inherent within capitalism, argued by the endorsement of the correspondence theory appointed by Bowles and Gintis (1976), cited by Giddens (2009). Furthermore, the important work of Paul Willis’ “Learning to Labour” (1977) and other statistical evidence highlights the persistence of inequality in higher education and its implications on differential social classes. Table of Contents: Introduction - ◦ Current contemporary policy debates of inequality within the education system in the UK backed up with statistical evidence. ◦ History of the education system and the changes in policies throughout the years. Theory - ◦ Defining education - Giddens (2009) ◦ Introducing concepts, and definitions on social inequality and exclusion ◦ Marxist perspectives - Max Weber, Marx and Engels ◦ Correspondence Theory - Bowles and Gintis (1976) Empirical - ◦ Explaining the links between social exclusion and how it reflects inequality in education ◦ Class differences in education - Halsey et al (1980) ◦ Learning to Labour - Paul Willis’ (1977) Conclusion - ◦ Reinstate the aim of the essay from the introduction, how it is has been achieved throughout the essay and a final summary on the theories, considering the empirical evidence introduced. Bibliography: Brennan, C., 1997. Max Weber on Power and Social Stratification : an Interpretation and Critique. Routledge Uuuu-Uuuu. Cole, M., 1988. Bowles and Gintis Revisited : Correspondence and Contradiction in Education Theory. London: Falmer. Giddens, A., 2009. Sociology. 6th ed. Cambridge, Uk ; Malden, Ma: Polity. Halsey, A. H., Anthony Francis Heath and John Michael Ridge, 1980. Origins and Destinations. Oxford : Clarendon Press ; New York : Oxford University Press. Warwick-Booth, L., 2019. Social Inequality. Los Angeles, Etc: Sage. Willis, P., 1977. Learning to labor: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs. New York: Columbia University Press. Education stands as a pivotal platform for human development, yet also stands as one of the most obvious illustrations of social inequality and exclusion. The issue of social inequality and exclusion within the education system has become a focal point of concern in current UK contemporary policy debates. Giddens (2009 p.,834) states education is “a social institution which enables and promotes the acquisition of skills, knowledge and the broadening of personal horizons”. He believes that education has links between the concepts of socialisation and enculturation which refer to how children require knowledge with the morals and values that are in each society. Worldwide, schooling is to provide the means for learning and for a better career. Giddens (2009, pg., 834) defines schooling as “an institutional process of education, in which certain types of knowledge and skills are delivered, normally via a predesigned curriculum in specialised settings”. The importance of social inequality issues in relation to the education system is an issue that children need to be made aware of. There are many complexities that policy makers are constantly trying to tackle, and this is highlighted throughout the continuous changes in laws revolving around education. The Child Poverty Action Group reported in September 2023, 4.2 million children in the UK are growing up in poverty, equalling out to 9 children in an average class of 30. They also found that the ‘casual relationship between child poverty and educational outcomes is well established, with children from lower income households less likely to achieve than their more affluent peers.’ This displays that despite the efforts to address the division of socio-economic wealth and the education system, there are still persistent significant challenges that are to be faced. The history of changes within the education system policies have dramatically changed within the last 100 years and is under constant heavy scrutinisation due to continued debates of how social class impacts the education system. In 1988, the Baker Act (Education Reform Act) introduced the National Curriculum with achievements targets for students at the ages of 7, 11, 14 and 16 and also gave schools the right to opt out of the Local Education Authorities (UK Parliament, 1988). Milbourne (2002 pg. 325- 343) identified the Education Reform Act 1988 as being a “shift towards adopting principles of managerial and financial accountability with the least advantages pupils as the greatest losers in over- subscribed schools that are seen as ghettoised, under-resources and stigmatised with low status”. In this essay, I’ll be analysing the educational system in order to determine whether social exclusion and inequality have actually decreased or whether the gap between the privileged and the underprivileged has widened, it’ll focus heavily on class differences in education and how it is a central theme in the policy debate that centres around social inequality. Sociological theories will be utilised to examine concepts of social exclusion (Levitas et al., 2007) and social inequality (Warwick-Booth, 2019). It will also look at historical developments in theory and how they have affected schooling in UK society today. Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, social inequality and exclusion are two concepts that are utilised by some of the most significant theorists in history. Levitas (2005) defined social exclusion as having three competing discourses. Levitas (2005) developed a model outlining three different strategies. Despite their contradictions, these approaches are often seen together in individual studies. The contrast between these ideologies offers unique viewpoints that regard the roots of marginalisation and poverty. As a result, there are many recommendations calling for important measures. However, there’s still confusion surrounding the ‘notion’ of social aspect whilst defining social exclusion. The first discourse for defining social exclusion, described by Levitas is redistributive (RED). This is derived from social policy which views social exclusion as being a consequence of poverty. The second discourse is the moral underclass discourse (MUD). This emphasises cultural causes for poverty, it focuses on the consequences of social exclusion and tends to emphasise on specific groups such as the unemployed and particularly criminal young males. The third discourse is social integration (SID) which is the inclusions of hinges within the integration of the labour market implying inequality as those who are ‘workless’ are excluded. There are many criticisms of the term ‘social exclusion’ as it is argued that social exclusion is caused by people willingly excluding themselves from mainstream society throughout their own actions and oppositional moral values. This is evident from the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act which was impacted by Jeremy Bentham who believed that humans will only do what they believe is pleasant, and therefore, have to be forced to work. Ideas from Thomas Malthus were also drawn into making this legislation with his belief of the population growth being too rapid to be offset by economic growth and new employment. Warwick Booth (2019) defined social inequality as ‘the condition where people have unequal access to valued resources, services, and positions in the society ’ (Kerbo, 2003: 13 in Warwick-Booth, 2019: 2) Social inequality has a lot more aspects rather than just being about money, including various economic inequalities, Warwick-Booth argues that inequality has major impacts upon the most vulnerable members of society, particularly children. Max Weber, from a Weberian perspective believes that societies are unequal and as a result of this, conflict is created. Weber discovered there are 3 dimensions of inequality; he argued that early industrialisation is foremost shaped by economic inequality. The second dimension of inequality that he discovered was that status is driven by prestige within a society, he found that in agrarian societies, status is linked to conformity with cultural norms. He also found that power driven by access and control over political institutions is prevalent in capitalist societies after industrialisation. From a Marxist perspective, inequality is analysed as being a result of the introduction of capitalism and stratification, where classes were made by splitting people into two classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. (Engels 1952) The bourgeoisie consisted of employers who would exploit the proletariat (the workers) and earn surplus value from their employment. Marx theorises the exploitation of the proletariat by explaining how the surplus value is a result of productive process. This inequality is present within the 1834 poor law amendment act as it reduces the expenses for poor relief which takes more away from the workers, creating a larger gap within the stratification system and resulting in more social inequality. Social inequality is evident within the workplace throughout the lack of authority amongst workers and similarly, students who also face limited influence. Within workplaces and educational institutions, the use of scare tactics highlights the importance of taking on jobs which may seem unfulfilling, leading students to prioritise getting good grades over genuinely learning (Bowles and Gintis 1976 in Giddens 2009). Furthermore, schools often stress the importance of being obedient and adhering to school rules, especially in institutions that cater mostly to working class families and students - which prepares students for future workplaces. Students who are academically successful are encouraged to view their achievements as a result as heir own abilities and efforts, however working-class students are likely to face additional responsibilities such as household chores and also working to support their families, making it more difficult for them to focus solely on just schoolwork. Despite this, those who are failing academically, are expected to internalise their shortcomings and to take personal responsibility, shifting the blame away from school and teachers (Bowles and Gintis 1976 in Giddens 2009). Sharing a Marxist perspective, Paul Willis (1977) has scrutinised the correspondence theory by asserting that schools are poor socialisation tools if there is an absence of a shared consensus on values, leading students to actively reject social norms and values. Consequently, these pupils are not at all obedient, compliant or the industrious workers that Bowles and Gintis have described. Willis’s ethnographic study of 12 working-class ‘lads’ in Birmingham, led to the insight as to trying to understand why working-class boys would gravitate towards working class occupations. This study was called ‘Learning to Labour’ and according to the results of this investigation, the ‘lads’ thought that those who adhered to educational rules were ‘earl’oles and lobes’, denoting the conformity of those who follow the school rules (Willis, 1977). These students were not interested in pursuing academic success, they instead would place more interest on having fun and messing around. One of the main figures within the study, Joey, claimed that attending school had not benefitted him at all. Therefore, Willis’s study suggests working class males choose to fail as they don’t value educational success and instead hold a ‘know-it-all’ mentality in which theory is secondary to practice. In contrast to this, middle class students hold cultural knowledge and qualifications as being pathways to upward social mobility. After the ‘lads’ had finished school, they pursued careers in tyre fitting, carpet installation, plumbing and bricklaying - which are deemed as being working class jobs. Willis’ noted that the lads were committed to a future of general labour rather than choosing a career and the allure of earning money instantly and achieving societal norms of ‘manhood’ drove them to drop out of school and to pursue working class jobs. Continuing Willis’s study, after a few months of employment, he found that half of the boys had left their initial jobs and moved to their third jobs and the remaining two were unemployed (Willis, 1977). The study of working-class boys remains vital in modern society, particularly due to majority of the counterculture within the educational system, comes from working class male students. Willis (1977) defines this counterculture as being characterised by resistance to the learning culture in order to gain status amongst peers, where greater deviance leads to a higher status (Willis, 1977). This counterculture is the result of working-class internalised beliefs where they believe they are not intellectually capable to achieve high grades and to succeed in prestigious careers, leading them to deviate. One could argue that academically failing helps the working class to realise how inferior they are to the middle class (Giddens, 2009). Social inequality is most prevalent within the education system, as differences in access and quality are constantly presented. From an alternative perspective, Halsey et al. (1980) examined the educational background of more than 8,500 men and found disheartening results. Despite the increase of higher education, social inequality still exists in the lives of the working class. Middle class boys would enjoy staggering benefits; at 16, they were 4 times more likely to be in school, at 18, they were 10 times more likely and at 11 times higher, they were more likely to attend college. Furthermore, high educational fees in the UK unjustly affects lower income households. Blandin and Machin (2004) in the 1970s, found that there was unequal distribution of possibilities for higher education, as children from wealthy families would benefit the most. This was a persisting trend, even before the widespread expansion of higher education across the UK. Starting at 75% of senior judges and nearly a quarter of MPs having graduated from Oxbridge universities, Elitist Britain, a seminal study by the social mobility and Child Poverty Commission (2014), illustrated a stark representation of the well-established social elite, in contrast to the small fraction of the public who have access to such prestigious institutions. These statistics highlight the narrow paths of social mobility within the UK, where achieving the top ranks of society, frequently requires a history of attending premium schools and universities. In essence, empirical evidence unequivocally illustrates that social inequality has not decreased, despite schooling becoming more democratic. The current state of the educational system still remains persistent with disparities, feeding into an ongoing vicious cycle where working classes constantly receive inadequate education and socialisation, resulting to less upward social mobility and instead rather solidifying their socioeconomic disadvantage. To conclude, the aim of this essay was to illuminate the widespread social inequality and exclusion injustices which are ingrained in the UK’s education system. It is clear from a thorough analysis of empirical data collected over decades that disparities still persist, perpetuating a cycle of disadvantage for marginalised communities. Despite the complexities, I have not only contributed to the obstacles that surround social inequality within education, but I have also taken a significant step towards trying to make a call for positive change. Social injustices within the education system is a devastating reality, as demonstrated in the research by Halsey et al. (1980) and Blanden Machin (2004). The working classes continue to face significant disadvantages, whilst middle class counterparts are able to benefit from their disproportionate access and opportunities. In the work of Paul Willis (1977) the research illustrated the active role that schools have in continuing the cycle of working-class employment amongst male students. A clear emphasis is made over the. manual labour rather than intellectual ability which underpins the prioritisation of school’s accomplishments, contributing to an unequal social system. These disparities go beyond simple access; they also show up as unequal resource allocation, higher education fees and ingrained elitism within prestigious institutions. Social exclusion is made worse and opportunities for upward mobility are restricted when privilege is concentrated amongst a smaller group of people. Therefore, even if progress has been achieved to increase access to education, socio economic inequality still exists within the system - emphasising the need for coordinated efforts to address obstacles and to promote inclusivity, regardless of social statuses. A truly meritocratic and inclusive education system, where every student has the opportunity to flourish and contribute to society, regardless of their background, is something the UK can only aim for throughout equal policies and practices coming into place. Word Count – 2912 References Blanden and Machin, 2004. Educational inequality and the expansion of UK higher education. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 51 (2). pp. 230-249. ISSN 0036-9292. Stephen. Brennan, C., 1997. Max Weber on Power and Social Stratification : an Interpretation and Critique. Routledge Uuuu-Uuuu. Britain., G., 2014. Government’s Response to the Annual Report of the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission. Child Poverty Action Group, 2023. ‘There Is Only so Much We Can do’ - School Staff in England | CPAG [online]. cpag.org.uk. Available from: https://cpag.org.uk/news/there-only-so-much-we-can-do- school-staff-england#:~:text=The%20causal%20relationship%20between%20child. Cole, M., 1976. Bowles and Gintis Revisited : Correspondence and Contradiction in Education Theory. London: Falmer. Engels, F., 1892. The Condition of the Working-class in England in 1844. Engels. Giddens, A., 2009. Sociology. 6th ed. Cambridge, Uk ; Malden, Ma: Polity. Halsey, A. H., Anthony Francis Heath and John Michael Ridge, 1980. Origins and Destinations. Oxford : Clarendon Press ; New York : Oxford University Press. Levitas, R., 2005. The Inclusive society? : Social Exclusion and New Labour. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Milbourne, L., 2002. Life at the Margin: International Journal of Inclusive Education 6(4):325-343. Milbourne. UK Parliament, 2020. Changes in Education Laws [online]. UK Parliament. Available from: https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/livinglearning/school/keydates/. Warwick-Booth, L., 2019. Social Inequality. Los Angeles, Etc: Sage. Willis, P., 1977. Learning to Labour: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs. New York: Columbia University Press.