Defining social justice can be a difficult thing. Not only individually but also collectively. When applied to the three social theoretical perspectives concerning education, the concept of social justice can have very different meanings. Within the functionalism perspective, the concept of social justice generally refers to the equality of educational opportunity. Specifically, rewards will be granted and achieved on the basis of achievement (Feinberg and Soltis). Feinberg and Soltis further explain this as “the idea of equal opportunity means that individuals are to be chosen for certain roles and rewarded on the basis of achieved, rather than ascribed, characteristics.” A good example of educational advancement based on achievement can be found in the Kjeldal, Rindfleish and Sherridan article “Deal-Making and Rule-Breaking: Behind the Façade of Equity in Academia.” In Australia (and arguably in numerous other countries, including the United States), women have been historically underrepresented in academic positions above the senior lecturer level. Kjeldal, Rindfleish and Sherridan provide interesting data showing that 15.5% of men are above the senior lecturer position while only 3.5% of women were in positions above the senior lecturer level. While there is certainly a system of achievement equaling advancement the authors found that due to academic employment in historically lower level positions led to lower levels achievement. In other words, women were not in positions to receive grant funds or have the time outside of teaching to conduct research, both of which can lead to advancement beyond the senior lecturer level. Another example of this is found in the O’Connor article where she is discussing Kingston’s theory that teachers place high value on certain characteristics such as ability, hard work, staying out of trouble, etc. and that this does not reflect social biases that produce high achievement but “professionally informed assessments of which characteristics are essential to high academic and subsequent social achievement.” O’Connor further describes Kingston’s view and states “hard work, ability, articulateness, and staying out of trouble are wholly objective and culturally unambiguous phenomena.”
The conflict theorist’s view of social justice in education would be one of structural equality. In other words, there would be no struggle for power and that competition and achievement would have no place in the school. In a certain way, the EEO legislation in Australia (and in the United States) is an effort to create such a structural equality. Certainly functionalism is at play in this article about women academic in Australia as competition and achievement are driving the desire to gain power by advancing to high levels in the educational system. However, the conflict theorist would argue for a level playing field in the selection of academic positions beyond the senior lecturer position. The real question is how does one determine who is qualified and what would the selection criteria be? O’Connor provides a good discussion on social identity and what I believe relates to conflict theory. Specifically, O’Connor states:
“At the structural level, social identities reflect divisions in society that are marked by systematic material and/or power inequalities. Thus, class identity is marked by the fact that those with wealth have privilege and power compared to those without…Thus women, unlike men, are subordinated by sexism; minorities, unlike whites, are subordinated by racism; and the poor and working class, unlike the middle class, are subordinated by classism. It is these three structural divisions – race, class, and gender – that have generally preoccupied sociologists of education.”
The concept of social justice in the interpretivist approach to education can, in my opinion, vary from school to school of from culture to culture. The interpretivist approach to social justice is society specific (society can be any size) and not universal. In the Kjeldal, Rindfleish and Sherridan the issue of social justice from an interpretivist viewpoint is limited to women advancing in academia in Australia and the country’s EEO legislation and hiring practices and does not apply to the United States or other countries of the world. O’Connor provides an interpretivist’s view of social justice by stating “making sense of social identity is further complicated by the fact that social identities are also reflected and refracted differently across space…Thus, the experience of being black, male, and poor for example, is not exactly the same from one nation to the next, one school to the next, one family to the next, or one historical period to the next.
All three social theoretical perspectives concerning education have a different concept of social justice and how it can be realized in schools.
References
Feinberg, Walter & Jomas F. Soltis. School and Society. (4th ed.). (2004). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University Press.
Kjeldal, Sue-Ellen, Jennifer Rindfleish and Alison Sherridan. “Deal-Making and Rule-Breaking: Behind the Façade of Equity in Academia,” Gender and Education, Vol. 17 no. 4 (2005): 431-447.
O’Connor, Carla. “Making Sense of the Complexity of Social Identity in Relation to Achievement: A Sociological Challenge in the New Millenium,” Sociology of Education (2001) 159-168.
Showing posts with label Sociology of Education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sociology of Education. Show all posts
Monday, September 8, 2008
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Three Social Theoretical Perspectives Concerning Education
The three social theoretical perspectives concerning education are Functionalism, Conflict Theory, and the Interpretivist Approach. For this blog post I will discuss the “Education and Societal Inequality: Race, Gender, Class, and Ethnicity” and “Education as Cultural Transmission” themes to illustrate and compare the three social theoretical perspectives concerning education and how they contribute to an understanding of the sociology of education.
The theme of Education and Societal Inequality: Race, Gender, Class and Ethnicity offers an excellent opportunity to compare the three theoretical perspectives. In the Banks article on multicultural education we can compare the three social theoretical perspectives of education by looking at his five dimensions of multicultural education typology he provides. To briefly review, the five dimensions of multicultural education (according to Banks) are: content integration; knowledge construction; prejudice reduction; equity pedagogy; and, empowering school culture. The functionalist perspective, for example, can be found in the prejudice reduction dimension of Banks’ multicultural education typology. As cited by Banks, the prejudice reduction dimension of multicultural education “is designed to help students develop more democratic attitudes, values, and behaviors.” When students develop more democratic attitudes, values, and behaviors they become more socialized and are better able “to adapt to the economic, political and social institutions of that society” (Feinberg and Soltis).
Both the equity pedagogy and empowering school culture dimensions of Banks’ multicultural education typology demonstrate the conflict theory approach. Teachers in the equity pedagogy dimension attempt to use teaching strategies that “facilitate the academic achievement of students from diverse, racial, ethnic, and social-class groups…to help students who are members of low-status population groups to increase their academic achievement” (Banks). In particular, it’s the cultural deprivationists approach that focuses on social class and the culture of poverty that best demonstrates the conflict theory approach. According to Banks, “social scientists developed the culture of poverty concept to describe experiences of low income populations and in education this concept became known as cultural deprivation or the disadvantaged.” In many ways, the equity pedagogy dimension is quite similar to the empowering school culture dimension. The idea of the empowering school culture dimension, according to Banks, is “the process of restructuring the culture and organization of the school so that students from diverse racial, ethnic, and social-class groups will experience educational equality and cultural empowerment.” Banks notes that to achieve an empowering school culture for minority students and students from low social economic status backgrounds schools must “restructure” their culture and organization.
The interpretivist perspective can be found in both the content integration and the knowledge construction dimensions of Banks’ multicultural education typology. Content integration, according to Banks, “deals with the extent to which teachers use examples, data, and information from a variety of cultures and groups to illustrate key concepts, principles, generalizations, and theories in their subject area or discipline. Similarly, with the knowledge construction dimension, “teachers help students to understand how knowledge is created and how it is influenced by the racial, ethnic, and social-class positions of individuals and groups” (Banks). These two dimensions of Banks’ multicultural education typology seem to fit Feinberg and Soltis’ description of the interpretivist perspective as quite well. Feinberg and Soltis describe the interpretivist who “sees the social world as a world made up of purposeful actors who acquire, share, and interpret a set of meanings, rules, and norms that make social interaction possible. The social forces at work are shared meanings and interpreting individuals who interact in particular social contexts.”
Education ad Cultural Transmission is the second theme analyzed to complete this discussion. In her introduction to this theme, Strouse identifies the following three questions that come from the selected readings: What are the key values reflected in U.S. culture?; How is contemporary U.S. culture transmitted and maintained?; and, What are the roles of schools and teachers in promulgating these values, attitudes, and beliefs, or in fostering changes in them in anticipation of our society’s future needs? I won’t attempt to answer each of these questions with examples of each of the three social theoretical perspectives concerning education. Instead, I plan to look at Spindler’s account of modernizing cultures and what is the purpose of education? Spindler discusses the Sisala of Northern Ghana and the developing relationships among educated children and their parents and/or elders in the Sisala society. Specifically, Spindler looks at fathers and sons and how education has affected their relationships. From a functionalist perspective, the schools of the Sisala are socializing the children to learn and adjust to the changing and modernizing world around them. As Spindler states “the new schools, with their curricula and the concepts behind them, are future oriented.” They recruit students into a system that does not yet exist, or is just emerging.” This most certainly will create conflicts with their “illiterate” or uneducated fathers. In the Sisala schools the conflict theory perspective is most evident in the example Spindler provides of the teacher-student interaction. Spindler states that the “interaction between the teacher and his students is characterized by an authoritarian rigidity.” For example, students rise from their desks as the teacher enters the room as a sign of respect and students are not expected to ask questions of the material but rather are to give the “correct” answer when asked.
It's important for all educators (both teachers and administrators), researchers, and policy makers to have a “grasp” or knowledge of the three social theoretical perspectives concerning education if they are to have a good understanding of the sociology of education. Regardless of how one views education and the role schools play in society, without an understanding of the major theoretical perspectives and how different viewpoints interact with one’s own positions they are a less effective educator.
References
Banks, James A. “Multicultural Education: Historical Development, Dimensions, and Practice,” in Exploring Socio-Cultural Themes in Education: Readings in Social Foundations (Ed. Joan H. Strouse). (2001): 248-282.
Feinberg, Walter & Jomas F. Soltis. School and Society. (4th ed.). (2002). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University Press.
Spindler, George, D. “The Transmission of Culture,” in Exploring Socio-Cultural Themes in Education: Readings in Social Foundations (Ed. Joan H. Strouse). (2001): 5-28.
The theme of Education and Societal Inequality: Race, Gender, Class and Ethnicity offers an excellent opportunity to compare the three theoretical perspectives. In the Banks article on multicultural education we can compare the three social theoretical perspectives of education by looking at his five dimensions of multicultural education typology he provides. To briefly review, the five dimensions of multicultural education (according to Banks) are: content integration; knowledge construction; prejudice reduction; equity pedagogy; and, empowering school culture. The functionalist perspective, for example, can be found in the prejudice reduction dimension of Banks’ multicultural education typology. As cited by Banks, the prejudice reduction dimension of multicultural education “is designed to help students develop more democratic attitudes, values, and behaviors.” When students develop more democratic attitudes, values, and behaviors they become more socialized and are better able “to adapt to the economic, political and social institutions of that society” (Feinberg and Soltis).
Both the equity pedagogy and empowering school culture dimensions of Banks’ multicultural education typology demonstrate the conflict theory approach. Teachers in the equity pedagogy dimension attempt to use teaching strategies that “facilitate the academic achievement of students from diverse, racial, ethnic, and social-class groups…to help students who are members of low-status population groups to increase their academic achievement” (Banks). In particular, it’s the cultural deprivationists approach that focuses on social class and the culture of poverty that best demonstrates the conflict theory approach. According to Banks, “social scientists developed the culture of poverty concept to describe experiences of low income populations and in education this concept became known as cultural deprivation or the disadvantaged.” In many ways, the equity pedagogy dimension is quite similar to the empowering school culture dimension. The idea of the empowering school culture dimension, according to Banks, is “the process of restructuring the culture and organization of the school so that students from diverse racial, ethnic, and social-class groups will experience educational equality and cultural empowerment.” Banks notes that to achieve an empowering school culture for minority students and students from low social economic status backgrounds schools must “restructure” their culture and organization.
The interpretivist perspective can be found in both the content integration and the knowledge construction dimensions of Banks’ multicultural education typology. Content integration, according to Banks, “deals with the extent to which teachers use examples, data, and information from a variety of cultures and groups to illustrate key concepts, principles, generalizations, and theories in their subject area or discipline. Similarly, with the knowledge construction dimension, “teachers help students to understand how knowledge is created and how it is influenced by the racial, ethnic, and social-class positions of individuals and groups” (Banks). These two dimensions of Banks’ multicultural education typology seem to fit Feinberg and Soltis’ description of the interpretivist perspective as quite well. Feinberg and Soltis describe the interpretivist who “sees the social world as a world made up of purposeful actors who acquire, share, and interpret a set of meanings, rules, and norms that make social interaction possible. The social forces at work are shared meanings and interpreting individuals who interact in particular social contexts.”
Education ad Cultural Transmission is the second theme analyzed to complete this discussion. In her introduction to this theme, Strouse identifies the following three questions that come from the selected readings: What are the key values reflected in U.S. culture?; How is contemporary U.S. culture transmitted and maintained?; and, What are the roles of schools and teachers in promulgating these values, attitudes, and beliefs, or in fostering changes in them in anticipation of our society’s future needs? I won’t attempt to answer each of these questions with examples of each of the three social theoretical perspectives concerning education. Instead, I plan to look at Spindler’s account of modernizing cultures and what is the purpose of education? Spindler discusses the Sisala of Northern Ghana and the developing relationships among educated children and their parents and/or elders in the Sisala society. Specifically, Spindler looks at fathers and sons and how education has affected their relationships. From a functionalist perspective, the schools of the Sisala are socializing the children to learn and adjust to the changing and modernizing world around them. As Spindler states “the new schools, with their curricula and the concepts behind them, are future oriented.” They recruit students into a system that does not yet exist, or is just emerging.” This most certainly will create conflicts with their “illiterate” or uneducated fathers. In the Sisala schools the conflict theory perspective is most evident in the example Spindler provides of the teacher-student interaction. Spindler states that the “interaction between the teacher and his students is characterized by an authoritarian rigidity.” For example, students rise from their desks as the teacher enters the room as a sign of respect and students are not expected to ask questions of the material but rather are to give the “correct” answer when asked.
It's important for all educators (both teachers and administrators), researchers, and policy makers to have a “grasp” or knowledge of the three social theoretical perspectives concerning education if they are to have a good understanding of the sociology of education. Regardless of how one views education and the role schools play in society, without an understanding of the major theoretical perspectives and how different viewpoints interact with one’s own positions they are a less effective educator.
References
Banks, James A. “Multicultural Education: Historical Development, Dimensions, and Practice,” in Exploring Socio-Cultural Themes in Education: Readings in Social Foundations (Ed. Joan H. Strouse). (2001): 248-282.
Feinberg, Walter & Jomas F. Soltis. School and Society. (4th ed.). (2002). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University Press.
Spindler, George, D. “The Transmission of Culture,” in Exploring Socio-Cultural Themes in Education: Readings in Social Foundations (Ed. Joan H. Strouse). (2001): 5-28.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)