The Social Order and Education System

Introduction
The analysis below entails a discourse on sociology and theoretical foundation of education. The discussion address organizational and institutional issues that influence the role of the education system in reproducing social structures. Social issues such as ethnicity race and socio-economic are extensively addressed. The discourse concludes with a proposed policy recommendation of an education system that consolidates education and economic growth.
Education System and Social Order
The robustness of the meritocratic ideology in the education system remains a critical constraint to realizing social and economic equality in the US. The dominant perspective is evident in the employment culture in mainstream institutions in the US such as the government bureaus, factories, schools, offices among others (Bowles & Gintis, 1976). In a capitalized society such as the US, the legitimization of meritocratic hiring is a norm and made the hierarchical job-division a custom. The perspective has reinforced the ideology that technical skills have a causal relationship with economic productivity which is the foundation of the cognitive theory and the technocratic-meritocratic theory (Bowles & Gintis, 1976). Arguably, the role of the education system is the social continuity of life which is realized by integrating the youth into the society and subsequently narrowing economic disparities. (Breeben, 1968; Bowles & Gintis, 1976). Nevertheless, the education system ability to promote social order is constrained by existing property and market institutions that reproduce economic inequality through uneven development, uneven income from property and wider inequalities of social relations of corporate enterprises. Subsequently, as opposed to reducing the inequalities, the education system has been criticized for legitimizing the preexisting economic inequalities (Bowles & Gintis, 1976).
As Bowles & Gintis (1976) identifies, the assigning of unequal economic positions through competitive based, meritocratic, open and objective approach by the education system is the foundation for legitimization of economic inequality. The education system provides structures such meritocratic principles as the bases of assessment of technical and cognitive skills which forms the premise of ideologies such as the cognitive achievement and length of education as the precursor for individual economic success. Bowles & Gintis (1976) indicates that cognitive skills are a minimal component of economic success as empirical evidence different economic status for people with similar cognitive scores. As Breeben (1968) notes the formulation of the education system as a tool to distinguish students academic achievement with limited consideration of psychological capacities, which is later used to stratify people in the job market. Bowles & Gintis (1976) faults such facades and argues that educational meritocracy as extensively symbolic and largely entrenched in the American consciousness.
According to Bowles & Gintis (1976) the façade educational meritocracy as the custom for individual economic success yields from dominant classes who in pursuit of stable social order have continuously underscored the meritocracy bounding development of alternatives and evolution of social structures. Bowles & Gintis (1976) identifies capitalism as a legitimized social system in the US and characterizes the US work dynamism as hierarchical authority, bureaucratic, job stratification and differential wages which arguably. As opposed to creating an egalitarian process that equally distributes opportunities, the capitalist social system unconsciously evolved into social inequality.
The legitimation of the meritocratic façade creates a stratified, cognitive and competitive oriented school environment that subjectively shapes the student's career aspirations. For example, failure by students to achieve some criteria in test over time convinces the student of their inability in that particular field of study that later reconciles the students to tier social positions and attributing poverty as an outcome of educational failure faulting the rationality of the meritocratic orientation in serving economic rationality (Bowles & Gintis, 1976). The irony of the competitive meritocratic system is the legitimization of psychological behavior such as cheating in an attempt to meet standards of excellence (Breeben, 1968).
Similarly, the conservative genetic approach supported by the theory of IQ social inequality hypothesizes social background as an essential determinant of IQ and subsequently a determinant of cognitive skills implying that people from low socioeconomic class have lower IQ. However, (Breeben, 1968) identifies that success in performing is not entirely on acquired technical skills but as well as psychological skills. The IQ theory of social inequality legitimizes the meritocratic theory. Compelling empirical evidence refutes the technocratic-meritocratic theory by identifying an open enrolment system as a counter approach for the ostensibly meritocratic oriented selective enrolment resulting in rationality, efficiency, and equity of the US education system. Closely linked to the IQ theory is the genetic theory that posits that genetic transmission of economic status irrespective of social environment during cognitive development. The tenet for the theory is lower social status is linked to lower IQ while higher social status is linked to higher IQ. The argument on the heritability of IQ emphasizes the racial inequality and the concept that economic status is inheritable from the parents. A counterargument for the genetic tenet is a progressive and pervasive social and economic difference based on social classes reproduces intergenerational mobility hypothesizing that intellectual capabilities are a manifestation of social status.
The resistance theory contradicts the IQ reproduction theories by hypothesizing inexistence of congruence between IQ and socioeconomic status (Bowles & Gintis, 1976). Although the theory asserts to the argument the privileges and powers of a capitalist system are inheritable, it faults that superiority of genes is linked to socio-economic status implying economic poverty is not congruent to genes of the poor. The resistance theory is the foundation of a new stratification of society not based on the traditional reproduction theories. A school characterized by open enrolment devoid of meritocracy and entailing racial and social group indifference which is imperative in handling the contemporary education dynamics. Such a system addresses the bias of self-selection in the education system with people across the different socioeconomic backgrounds experiencing an equal educational opportunity.
Education Stratification and Capital
The interlinkage of culture and education and reproduction of social structures has increasingly attracted research interest (Lamont & Annette, 1988). Bourdieu (1973) defines the education system as intergenerational mobility of accumulated information which Durkheim refers as the inheritance of culture within a social structure accumulated from the past. On the other hand, Lamont & Annette (1988) defines cultural capital as the symbolic mastery of practice or the ability to perform the task in a culturally acceptable dimension or knowledge of the high culture. According to Lamont & Annette (1988), the concept of cultural capital provides a conceptual framework for understanding the social stratification system. Bourdieu (1973) observes that societies are stratified on the bases of symbolic social and cultural structures distributed in three main classes: lower position that includes workers, agricultural professionals, and small tradespeople; intermediate position that includes intermediate office staff, white-collar workers, employees of business and industry and higher position that entails professionals and higher office staff. Bourdieu (1973) identifies the education system reproduces the structures of appropriation of cultural capitals i.e high classes explicitly transmit higher cultural capital competence while lower cultural classes explicitly transmit lower cultural capital competence instituting the cycle of cultural capital.
Coleman (1988) defines social capital as a less tangible attribute that determines the productivity of relation between actors that sanctions action. Coleman (1988) identifies three elements of social capital; information channels, obligations and expectations, and social norms. The obligation and expectations dimension of social capital depends on the attribute of trustworthiness whose inexistence implies invaluable of social capital. The second dimension of social capital is information channels and information potentiality in facilitating action. The third social capital entails social norms that effectively sanctions actions. According to Coleman (1988), powerful norms internalizes a powerful form of social capital. Social capital in the community and family shapes the human capital as the family and community are associated with the intellectual development of children which is a predecessor of human capital. (Coleman, 1988). Exploring the causal relationship between education and social capital, Schultz (1961) identifies a positive causal link between education and development of social capital. For example, education raises participation in civic duty such as voting, volunteerism which are elements of social capital. Unlike the other forms of capital that are cultivated as a private good, Coleman (1988) notes that social capital is cultivated as a public good that demystifies its underinvestment in social capital development.
Human capital is an explicit form of resource in the economics of production and a limiting constraint to economic growth (Schultz, 1961). Human capital is augmented as a wealth whose investment determines the earnings differential. The earnings differential reflects the difference in levels of education with people of lower education levels earning substantially lower wages. According to Schultz (1961) wage differentials are proportionate to the investment in education and training implying an increasing return of investment in human resources. Centering the discussion o the knowledge and skills as the determinant of human capabilities, Schultz (1961) conjectures a positive implication of education investment on future earnings. According to Hout (2012), the level of education determines the quality of the job and the earnings with graduating with post-high school education enhancing occupational standing. Human capital abilities are therefore closely looped to the level of education. Attaching investment in human knowledge increased economic returns, Schultz (1961) observes a social differential in investment in the US with the negroes spending limited resources in education and earning lower incomes compared to the whites. Similarly, Schultz (1961) notes profound inequality in opportunities to pursue advanced education. Such an inference suggest suggests a cultural stratification of the education system which is consistent with the conventional wisdom of the cultural capital theory (Bourdieu, 1973; Schultz, 1961).
Sociological Critique of Education
Extant literature indicates that the education system has a critical compensatory role of reducing existing social inequalities. There exist two distinct strands of literature that examines student’s transition in the education system; track location and sequence of transitions (Lucas, 2001). According to the sequence of transitions, students cumulatively transition to the next level or grade of education till the end of formal education, while in track location treats achievement as the foundation of the ability of a student. The two strands of literature form a premise for stratification of the education system. Lucas (2001) posits that the two strands of literature are however observed to have an element of social background constraining just evaluation and resulting in inconsistency in achievement and transition of students. The permanence of social inequality in the education system forms a base for rejecting the strands of literature on the stratification of the current education system. The rationale for tracking students is analyzing the efficiency and effectiveness of instructions by teachers in improving the cognitive ability of students (Hallinan, 1994). Accordingly, instructions are tailored to the level of tracks with higher tracks indicating higher ability and lower tracks indicating the lower ability of the students. According to Hallinan (1994), the assignment of the task is dependent on both academic factors such as grades, standardized test scores, prerequisite courses, prior tracks and teachers recommendation, and non-academic factors such as co-curricular and extracurricular schedules, course conflicts curricular resources and work demands.
According to Lucas (2001), the level of tracks are not permanent, hence it’s common for students to change tracks depending in the grade level, subject or school. Hallinan (1994) observes the level of the track as an indicator of the level of instructions with higher tracks linked with higher quality and quantity of instruction while lower tracks indicating a lower quantity and quality of instruction. Consequently, lower ability students receive fewer learning opportunities compared with higher-ability students faulting the tracking system. Tracking disproportionately assigns some students to lower ability tracks yielding unwarranted social hierarchies (Hallinan, 1994). Given that ability is linked the social status, race and ethnicity the tracking system perpetuates the prevailing social status segregation with students from lower social class, races or ethnicity constrained in the lower tracks. The disproportionate allocation of tracks based on social status, ethnicity and race, tracks may not necessarily reflect the quality of teaching. Higher tracks are linked with a higher economic status which implies more access to resources that complement teaching and improves student achievement. Conversely, lower tracks are linked to lower social economic status and minority race or ethnicity, which constrains access to complementary resources to teaching and diminishes the student's achievement implying that students achievement is not a direct indicator of the quality of teaching (Lucas, 2001). Consequently, the tracking system yields a negative social psychological effect on students on lower tracks that ultimately limits their academic achievement.
The 1966 Coleman report indicated the education system as a central institution in reproducing social inequality (Downey & Condron, 2016). According to the Coleman report, the non-school environment is a primary factor in cognitive skills development. Accordingly, socially advantaged students access more challenging materials that enhance effectiveness in learning while socially disadvantaged students have limited access to education materials limiting their effectiveness in learning. According to Downey & Condron (2016), although teachers are expected to operate in an egalitarian manner, often the teachers are inclined to favor advantaged students and academically advanced as opposed to disadvantaged students who are often academically strugglings students exacerbating to the social inequality
Downey & Condron (2016) notes that empirical analysis demonstrates the superior performance of white kids compared to the Asian or black kids in the US confounding the hypothesis that improvement in educational achievement is not entirely an indicator of the improved quality of teaching. On the contrary, improvement in academic achievement is an indicator of the consolidation of a compensatory mechanism to eliminate the external social environment that constrains academic achievement (Downey & Condron, 2016). Along the lines of compensatory role of schools, Downey & Condron (2016) indicates that increase in distribution of teachers and other fundamental resources yields a positive effect on cognitive skills development implying that reducing the academic achievement gap would require more than just improving the quality of teaching but rather the addressing of underlying social economic background differences.
Policy Recommendation of an Education System
As the global economy transcends the fourth industrial revolution, it’s fundamental for economies to reposition themselves to be in rhythm and realize the growth and development opportunities that the revolution wave carries along. Rubinson (1986) observes the evolution of schooling alongside the agrarian and industrial revolutions of 19th and 20th centuries simultaneously implying a long-term consequence of structures of education. Human capital has been a central variable in the literature on economic growth.
Multiple theories have been developed as theoretical foundations for the linkage between education and economic with two confounding theories; modernization theory and technical functionality theory gaining prominence (Rubinson & Browne, 1994). The theories posit a reinforcing relationship between education and economic growth such that increased economic growth expands education which subsequently reinforces economic growth. According to the technical functionality theory, greater literacy and technical skills are pre-requisite to industrialization. The human capital theory reinforces the argument for education positive effects on economic growth by positing that stock of relevant skills determines the productive efficiency of an employee. Rubinson & Browne (1994) conjectures that education has been identified to accelerate the modernization of society by equipping the people with modern skills, competence, knowledge, and attitude and expanding their capacity in the delivery of task. Arguably cumulative accumulation of knowledge and skills enhances economic productivity and technical efficiency forms foundation for economic growth, modernization, and development. Economic analysis of economic growth between 1929 and 1957 identified 0.93% annual rate of increase in quality of labor linked to education. Confirming the findings of the economic analysis, studies in the late 20th century identifies the contribution of increased labor productivity to economic growth.
Over the centuries, worldwide economic progress has been linked to an expanding education system and increased education enrollment. The discrepancies in economic growth have to some extent being linked to the scientific and mathematical development in education system increasing the curriculum emphasis on science and mathematics (Ramirez, et al., 2006). The argument is supported by the conjecture that productive engineers and scientist as an outcome of a curriculum that largely emphasizes greater achievement in engineering and natural science simultaneously. Extant studies have demonstrated that increasing scientific publications and patent application that reflects an improved national research capacity yields a positive effect on economic growth. For example, Ramirez, et al., (2006) identifies a positive effect of student’s achievement in science and mathematics on economic growth. Consequently, the general theory that economic growth is grounded on quality of schooling has become pervasive.
A panel data analysis by Ramirez, et al., (2006) identifies that nations that strongly enforce prodevelopment policies such as the Asian Tigers of Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and Hongkong have a science and mathematics-oriented schooling system. The analysis further links Japanese economic progress in the 1980s to a primary and secondary schooling system that has an intense science and mathematics-oriented curriculum. Accordingly, Ramirez, et al. (2006) findings of rapidly growing economies in the 20th century characterized by scarcity of natural resources infer that science and mathematics achievement as a fundamental variable for economic growth. The findings exemplify the significance of human-capital development. However, the findings confound the trends in mainstream developed countries that realized development in the 19th century such as the US whose development is rather linked to the abundance of natural resources (Ramirez, et al., 2006). The above argument underlies the significance of a science-oriented schooling system implying the significance of adopting policy directives that incentivize increased enrolment in science and engineering fields in higher education.
A critical challenge in instituting an effective education system is the dynamism if social background created by the western capitalist system (Turner, 1960). The capitalist system has been faulted for restricting access to people from particular social backgrounds. Accordingly, caution has to be instituted to ensure that the educational policies do not exacerbate the academic achievement gap based on social inequality which is evident in the capitalist western systems. Turner (1960) identifies social status as the prize of quality of education in a capitalist environment with the high standing people interacting of people from only similar hierarchies which creates a criterion for stratification of schools. The proposed system should, therefore, transfer proportionate social good to the disadvantaged in the society to ensure the equitable compensatory role of the education system (Turner, 1960).


References
Bourdieu, P. (1973). Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction. In R. Brown, Knowledge, Education, and Cultural Change (pp. 71-112). London: Tavistock.
Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in Capitalist Americ; Educational Reform and the Contradictions of Economic life. Basic Books.
Breeben, R. (1968). On What is Learned in School. London: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Coleman, J. (1988). Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 95-120.
Downey, D., & Condron, D. (2016). Fifty Years since the Coleman Report: Rethinking the Relationship between Schools and Inequality. Sociology of Education, 207-220.
Hallinan, M. (1994). Tracking: From Theory to Practice. Sociology of Education, 79-84.
Hout, M. (2012). Social and Economic Return to College Education. Annual Review Sociology, 38.
Lamont, M., & Annette, L. (1988). Cultural Capital: Allusions, Gaps, and Glissandos in Recent Theoretical. Sociological Theory, 153-168.
Lucas, S. (2001). Effectively Maintained Inequality: Education Transitions, Track Mobility, and Social Background Effects. American Journal of Sociology, 1642-1690.
Ramirez, F., Luo, X., Schofer, E., & Meyer, J. (2006). Student Achievement and National Economic Growth. American Journal of Education.
Rubinson, R. (1986). Class Formation, Politics, and Institutions: Schooling in the United States. The American Journal of Sociology, 519- 548.
Rubinson, R., & Browne, I. (1994). Education and the Economy.
Schultz, T. (1961). Investment in Human Capital. The American Economic Review, 1-17.
Turner, R. (1960). Sponsored and Contest Mobility and the School System. American Sociological Review, 855-867.