SIGN UP FOR TUTORIALS Please go to this website: http://www.abdn.ac.uk/diss/ltu/booking Tutorial attendance is compulsory

Education Consider ‘macro’ or structuralist approaches Today: - Background - Functionalist Theories Critical views re Hidden Curriculum Tomorrow: - Bernstein, Bourdieu

Structuralist Approaches Last term – more on individuals/groups Now – more structural - institutions, power relations, inequalities etc E.g. – consider – on education: functions/roles of schools, Unis power relations – who shapes educational institutions? Who gains from them?

Historical Background Education in Britain: Compulsory since 1870s/1880 Leaving age up from 10 to 16 Mass higher/further education – 2000 – Scotland: 32% in universities, 19% in colleges

Continuing Inequalities Fee-paying schools keep advantages 70% rich kids enter University; under 10% in poorest areas Ethnic minorities – schools fail young black males Females – higher grades, but career inequalities

Functionalists - Durkheim Education promotes social solidarity, social system ED - French, early 20thC Education: - promotes group commitment learn rules, procedures teaches special skills for complex, industrial society

Functionalists - Parsons 1950s, US sociologist Education socialises children Schools are: Universalistic Pro achievement Meritocratic And enable ‘role allocation’ Different rewards seen as fair Education promotes democracy, modernisation

Criticisms Schools don’t transmit shared norms, solidarity? Power issues: Who gains? Dominant classes? Schools not meritocratic or pro-achievement? Need more critical focus on inequalities

Illich ‘Hidden Curriculum’ Schools: - teach key values, promote social order BUT: promote passivity, conformity produce obedient consumers public lack influence over what is taught Pro ‘deschooling’, ‘learning webs’

Bowles & Gintis US Marxists ‘Correspondence Principle’ (education and work are similar worlds) ‘Hidden curriculum’ produces: Obedient workers Accept hierarchies External rewards as normal Fragmented subjects – world makes little sense

Bowles & Gintis Schools legitimise inequality Pupil results: Class/family more influential than IQ Criticisms? Employers don’t control schooling? Formal curriculum? Children not passive (Willis)? Potent critique of inequalities

Gender Girls long excluded from higher education Post-war – greater participation But ‘hidden curriculum’ - gender-role expectations – e.g. boys in science Recent studies: girls ‘out-perform’ boys But – differences remain - glass ceiling e.g. Unis and female pay!

Summary Consider structural aspects of education Functionalists: benefits social system Illich: many negative effects, notably passivity Bowles/Gintis: sustains exploitative system Gender: school and gender inequalities

SIGN UP FOR TUTORIALS Please go to this website: http://www.abdn.ac.uk/diss/ltu/booking Tutorial attendance is compulsory End of this class – I need 7-8 class reps. Please volunteer and come to the front at end of lecture

Education - Inequalities Structuralist theories of Education: Bernstein Bourdieu Educational inequalities rooted in class divisions

Bernstein Class differences linked to language Two ‘speech patterns’/Codes: Elaborated - Restricted Middle-class - Working-class Codes linked to classes and educational success

Bernstein Elaborated codes – universalistic Meanings explicit Longer, complex sentences Context free Restricted codes – particularistic Meanings implicit Fewer words, simpler sentences Context bound – situational, know other speakers

Bernstein Middle classes: elaborated codes need in work e.g. sales person-centred relationships in family Working classes: restricted codes positional relationships in family

Bernstein Education: Emphasises elaborated codes for success Suits middle-class children Working-class kids learn elaborated codes, not as familiar for them They need to change how see world to succeed in school Overall – BB ties education to class/language

Bourdieu Critiqued reproduction of class divisions through education Key concept – ‘Cultural Capital’ varied forms e.g. educational certificates, knowledge of arts and world, cultural ‘tastes’, etc. cultural resources dividing groups can use for economic gain helps success in work, social life

Bourdieu Dominant classes claim more cultural capital Lower classes have less experience, ‘out of place’ Children of dominant classes enter school with CC, where CC is appreciated

Bourdieu Dominant classes set educational standards Schools emphasise symbolic (e.g. talking) not practical (making) – favours dominant As move up educationally - pupils from dominated classes eased out Dominant classes – their children claim ‘better ability’

Bourdieu Inequalities seem fair – education is ‘open’, ‘free’ Lower-class children – failure is ‘their fault’ Some succeed, promoting ‘fairness’ illusion Recent times: Mass education: Lower-class dilemma: Gain devalued certificates OR Stay outside and ‘fail’

Critical Views Bernstein/Bourdieu: - Crude division of classes? Bernstein exaggerates limited speech of working classes? Bourdieu ignores lower class advances? Offers no scope for change? BUT: overall – structuralist accounts explain continuing inequalities, strong fit re theory and evidence