Review of Literature
Social Reproduction Defined, Social Reproduction Theory
Quite simply, social reproduction is the inheritance by children not only of their parents’ wealth or disadvantage, but also their parents’ social statuses. Children pass this legacy on to their children...and the pattern is perpetuated with little variation. Ryan and Sackrey (1984) offer an excellent description of social reproduction at work in American society:
"...The opportunity for upward social movement in the class system has, for the most part, never been an individual 'right' except as it is celebrated in our national social mythology. For every rags-to-riches story in the United States, there are several jammed blocks of dilapidated tenements filled with low income people in the same desperate place where they started." "The myth of upward mobility asserts that in this land, unfettered by a feudal past, though burdened by slavery and genocide, all are free to rise to the highest level that 'their talents permit.' No 'artificial' obstacles stand in the way. A complex ideological apparatus has evolved to etch this message indelibly on the consciousness of us all. The myth's function, of course, first and foremost, is to justify the huge inequalities of income and political power that are integral to a capitalist social order. It has the secondary purpose of keeping the 'no-bodies' in a state of political impotence and frozen by self-contempt for their own failure, rather than fired by righteous anger at their victimization. No less importantly, the myth functions to make it appear as though one's position in life were a consequence of a fair game with all the participants playing by the same rules, all with the same starting points." "In other words, the myth about upward mobility has, among all its effects, one of central importance to us: it quite simply denies the relevance of class as an arbiter of life's chances." "Significant mobility in one lifetime, from blue-collar to professional/managerial realms, or from the working class to the charmed circle of the powerful owning class, happens rarely. Moreover, and not surprisingly, it is exceedingly rare that the sons or daughters of the owning class end up down at the bottom of the social heap." (Pp. 1-2)
Social reproduction theory attempts to explain this trend of social inheritance. The following examination of social reproduction theory draws heavily from the work of MacLeod (1987):
Although MacLeod acknowledges that reproduction theorists most often draw on the work of Max Weber and Emile Durkheim, he asserts that a great debt is owed Karl Marx for his contributions. MacLeod notes one important contribution Marx makes to social reproduction theory in Capital (1976): "The capitalist process of production...produces not only commodities, not only surplus-value, but it also produces and reproduces the capitalist-relation itself; on the one hand the capitalist, on the other the wage labourer" (Marx, quoted by MacLeod, p. 9). MacLeod suggests that reproduction theorists pursue a common interest in their attempts to "unravel how and why individuals of modest social origins are at a decided disadvantage in the struggle for lucrative and prestigious jobs" and uncover how social status or social class position is transmitted. (p. 9) However, these theorists often take somewhat different approaches in exploring their common interest:
"Deterministic theorists take as their starting point the structural requirements of the capitalist economic system and attempt to demonstrate how individuals are obliged to fulfill predetermined roles that ensure the successful accumulation of capital and the perpetuation of a class society. Culturally attuned models begin with the experiences of individuals, and only after understanding people on their own terms do these models attempt to connect those experiences with the demands of capitalist relations." (Pp. 9-10)
Perhaps the most deterministic approach explored by MacLeod is that of Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis. Bowles and Gintis, as Marxists, "begin their analysis with the forces and relations of production," and "in reviewing the American educational system...point out the ways in which it is subordinated to and reflective of the reproduction process and structure of class relations in the United States." (p. 10) Bowles and Gintis emphasize their "correspondence principle" which highlights the similarities between the workplace and school system (p. 10):
"Bowles and Gintis argue that strong structural similarities can be seen in (1) the organization of power and authority in the school and in the workplace; (2) the student’s lack of control of curriculum and the worker’s lack of control of the content of his/her job; (3) the role of grades and other rewards in the school and the role of wages in the workplace as extrinsic motivational systems; and (4) competition among students and the specialization of academic subjects and competition among workers and the fragmented nature of jobs. In short, the social relations of the school reflect those of the capitalist mode of production; through its institutional relationships, the system of education in the United States ‘tailors the self-concepts, aspirations, and social class identifications of individuals to the requirements of the social division of labor’ " (Bowles and Gintis, quoted by MacLeod, p. 10).
Bowles and Gintis indicate "the ways in which the educational system treats students differently depending on their social origins" by demonstrating that there are major structural differences among schools; i.e., schools serving working class neighborhoods emphasize rules and behavioral control whereas schools in suburban neighborhoods exercise less direct supervision and favor greater student participation and a value system that stresses internalized standards of control (from Bowles and Gintis, cited in MacLeod, Pp. 10-11). Further, Bowles and Gintis argue that "Even within the same school...educational tracks, which cater to different classes of students, emphasize different values" (Bowles and Gintis, quoted in MacLeod, p. 11). MacLeod suggests that even though Bowles and Gintis’ theory "breaks important ground by examining how the process of schooling reinforces relations of dominance and inequality among classes, their theory ultimately is too crudely deterministic to capture the complexity of social reproduction" (p. 11)
The next contribution MacLeod considers is Pierre Bourdieu’s "original theory" of reproduction which limits class structure to a more subtle role but does not preclude deterministic elements. MacLeod suggests that Bourdieu’s most important contribution and the "centerpiece of Bourdieu’s theory of cultural reproduction" is his concept of cultural capital, "the general cultural background, knowledge, disposition, and skills that are passed on from one generation to the next" (from Bourdieu, cited in MacLeod, p. 12):
"Children of upper-class origin...inherit substantially different cultural capital than do working-class children. By embodying class interests and ideologies, schools reward the cultural capital of the dominant classes and systematically devalue that of the lower classes. Upper-class students, by virtue of a certain linguistic and cultural competence acquired through family upbringing, are provided with the means of appropriation for success in school. ...Hence, the school serves as the trading post where socially valued cultural capital is parleyed into superior academic performance. Academic performance is then turned back into economic capital by the acquisition of superior jobs. The school reproduces social inequality, but by dealing in the currency of academic credentials the school legitimates the entire process." (p. 12)
Another significant contribution of Bourdieu is his employment of the concept of habitus, "a system of lasting, transposable dispositions which, integrating past experiences, functions at every moment as a matrix of perceptions, appreciations, and actions" (Bourdieu, quoted in MacLeod, p. 13). "Put simply, the habitus is composed of the attitudes, beliefs, and experiences of those inhabiting one’s social world." (p. 13) MacLeod reveals the interaction of these two concepts: "This conglomeration of deeply internalized values [the habitus] defines an individual’s attitudes toward, for example, schooling. The structure of schooling, with its high regard for the cultural capital of the upper classes, promotes a belief among working class students that they are unlikely to achieve academic success. Thus, there is a correlation between objective probabilities and subjective aspirations, between institutional structures and cultural practices" (from Bourdieu, in MacLeod, p. 13). "Aspirations," MacLeod observes, "reflect an individual’s view of his or her own chances for getting ahead and are an internalization of objective probabilities." (p. 13) This suggests that aspirations are not the product of rational analysis but are acquired in the habitus. This means that they are influenced by the successful (or not) environment surrounding a child, not by the child’s belief (or lack of) in his or her capabilities. The habitus is thus said to "engender attitudes and conduct that enable objective social structures to succeed in reproducing themselves." (p. 13)
Basil Bernstein makes an important contribution to reproduction theory with his theory of language codification. Linguistic code means "the underlying regulative principles that govern the selection and combination of different syntactic and lexical constructions" (Paul Atkinson, quoted in MacLeod, p. 15). "Bernstein looks specifically at the educational ramifications of divergent linguistic patterns among children of different social strata" and traces "the implications of social class for language use." (p. 15) Bernstein contends that the linguistic code of the working class is restricted and implicit; that of the middle class is more elaborate and explicit. (p. 15) Karabel and Halsey (1977) expand on this to suggest that social relations in the working class are "based upon shared identifications, expectations, and assumptions," and this creates a tendency toward use of a restrictive linguistic code because the speaker is sure that "the listener can take his intentions for granted [and] has little incentive to elaborate his meanings and make them explicit and specific. Middle class culture, in contrast, tends to place the "I" over the "we," and the resultant uncertainty that meanings will be intelligible to the listener forces the speaker to select among syntactic alternatives and to differentiate his vocabulary" which results in an elaborated code of speech oriented to highly individuated meanings (from Karabel and Halsey, quoted in MacLeod, p. 16). MacLeod concludes that "...Bernstein puts forth a theory that focuses on a powerful mechanism of social reproduction." (p. 16)
Likewise, Paul Willis’ work has important ramifications for reproduction theory. Importantly, Willis points out that "there is no clear separation between agency and structure; these cannot be understood in isolation from one another" (Liz Gordon, quoted in MacLeod, p. 18) and argues that only "By viewing social reproduction as it is actually lived out, [can we] understand the mechanisms of the process." (p. 17) MacLeod expands upon Willis’ argument of cultural production:
"Willis insists that the cultural attitudes and practices of working-class groups are not necessarily reflective of, or even traceable to, structural determinations or dominant ideologies. Although the mode of production wields a powerful influence on the attitudes and actions of individuals, people do not simply respond to the socioeconomic pressures bearing down on them with passivity and indifference. The culture level is marked by contestation, resistance, and compromise. ...Subordinate groups can produce alternative cultural forms containing meanings endemic to the working class..." (p. 18)
The final contribution to social reproduction theory that MacLeod offers is that of Henry A. Giroux who "contends that separation of human agency and structural analysis either suppresses the significance of individual autonomy or ignores the structural determinants that lie outside the immediate experience of human actors" (Giroux, quoted in MacLeod, p.18). "Giroux argues for a rigorous treatment of ideology, consciousness, and culture in order to move reproduction theory past the theoretical impasse imposed by structural-agency dualism." (p. 19) Further, "Giroux considers resistance a response to the educational system, a response rooted in "moral and political indignation," not psychological dysfunction." (p. 19) Giroux’s resistance theory "examines the ongoing, active experiences of individuals while simultaneously perceiving in oppositional attitudes and practices a response to structures of constraint and domination." (p. 19) However, while Giroux makes a valuable contribution to reproduction theory, a serious drawback to his work is that "...Giroux himself undertakes no...investigation." (p. 20)
MacLeod’s study, like Willis, looks at two groups of working class youths who respond radically different to the same structural and economic determinants. His work attempts to "illuminate some of the mechanisms, both structural and cultural, that contribute to social reproduction." (p. 20) MacLeod’s major goal is to offer empirical support for Bourdieu’s concept of aspirations: "although [Bourdieu’s] arguments are rich in logic...many of his most interesting insights and theoretical formulations are presented without empirical backing of appropriate empirical tests" (Swartz, quoted in MacLeod, p. 14). According to MacLeod, aspirations are paramount: "of all the factors contributing to social reproduction (e.g., tracking, social relations of schooling, class-based differences in linguistic codes), the regulation of aspirations is perhaps the most important." (Pp. 20-21) "In particular," MacLeod asserts, "occupational aspirations, as a mediating link between socioeconomic structures (what society offers) and individuals at the cultural level (what one wants), play a crucial role in the reproduction of class inequality." (p. 20) Moreover,
"Social reproduction theory identifies the barriers to social mobility, barriers that constrain without completely blocking lower- and working-class individuals’ efforts to break into the upper reaches of class structure." "In the most general terms, social reproduction theory explains how societal institutions perpetuate...the social relationships and attitudes needed to sustain the existing relations of production in a capitalist society. Reproduction theorists attempt to unravel how and why individuals of modest social origins are at a distinct disadvantage in the struggle for lucrative and prestigious jobs. These theorists share a common interest in uncovering how status or class position is transmitted." "Put simply, reproduction theory attempts to show how and why the United States can be depicted more accurately as the place where ‘the rich get richer’ and ‘the poor stay poor’ than ‘the land of opportunity.’ " (Pp. 6-9)
The Role of Education in the Reproduction of Social Class
Most reproduction theories depict education as an active participant in the social reproduction process. There is a great deal of evidence found in the existing literature to support this contention. But just how did education gain so much power in shaping society? Bowles (1977) attributes the rise of mass education and its power to shape society to the rise of capitalism:
"The extension of capitalist production, and particularly the factory system, undermined the role of the family as the major unit of both socialization and production." (p. 138) "Rapid economic change in the capitalist period led to frequent shifts in the occupational distribution of the labor force, and constant changes in the skill requirements for jobs. The productive skills of the father were no longer adequate for the needs of the son during his lifetime. Skill training within the family became increasingly inappropriate." (p. 138) "The broadening of the electorate of political participation generally...threatened soon to become an instrument for the growing power of the working class. Having risen to political power, the capitalist class sought a mechanism to insure social control and political stability" (B. Simon, quoted in Bowles, Pp. 138-139). "This situation created an imminent institutional crisis, and the outcome, in virtually all capitalist countries, was the rise of mass education." (p. 139)
Mass education was perceived as "an ideal preparation for factory work" because of schools’ emphases on discipline, punctuality, acceptance of authority outside the family, etc., and the role of school became the replication of social relations in the workplace. (p. 139) "Moreover," says Bowles, "because schooling would ostensibly be open to all, one’s position in the social division of labor could be portrayed as the result, not of birth, but of one’s own efforts and talents." (p. 139) Hence, American meritocracy was born...
...and social reproduction began: "The movement for public elementary and secondary education in the US originated in the 19th century in states dominated by a burgeoning industrial capitalist class...If the children’s everyday experiences with the structure of schooling were insufficient to inculcate the correct views and attitudes, the curriculum itself would be made to embody the bourgeois ideology." (p. 139) A system of stratification in elementary education developed within the rapidly expanding school system of the 19th century, and children of the social elite began to attend private schools (intentionally separating them from working class children whose "needs" were different) until they reached the high school level where they attended public schools (working class children normally dropped out of school before reaching or completing high school). (p. 139) Around the turn of the century, large numbers of working class and immigrant children began attending high schools, and a system of class stratification developed within secondary education. (p. 140) Education was tailored, and differing curriculums were designed, to fit the "needs of the child." (p. 140) "This and other educational reforms of the progressive educational reforms movement reflected an implicit assumption of the immutability of the class structure."7 (p. 140) Further, "The relation between social class and a child’s chances of promotion or tracking assignments was disguised--though not mitigated much--by another "progressive" reform: "objective" educational testing." (p. 140) Conclusively Bowles states, "The legacy of the progressive education movement, like the earlier reforms of the mid-19th century, was a strengthened system of class stratification within schooling which continues to this day to play an important role in the reproduction and legitimation of the social division of labor." (p. 140) Further, the US school system is "pervaded by class inequalities which have shown little sign of diminishing over the last half century," and "the evidently unequal control over school boards and other decision-making bodies in education does not provide a sufficient explanation of the persistence and pervasiveness of inequalities in the school system. (p. 137) Bowles (1977) contends that the role of schools is not only tied to the division of labor but suggests that education has the responsibility to ultimately reproduce the social class structure as well. Bowles and Gintis (1976) echo the notion that school reflects the social relations of the division of labor and further contend that schools reproduce inequalities. Papagiannis et al. (1983) agree with this contention: "The most important outcomes of schooling may be reproduction and legitimation of prevailing social class relations..." (p. 364)
Colclough and Beck’s (1986) study confirms that education plays a dominant role in the reproduction of social class. In "The American Educational Structure and the Reproduction of Social Class," Colclough and Beck (1986) use a reproduction model to explore the extent to which the social class structure in American society is reproduced by its educational institutions and find what factors contribute to the explanation of social class reproduction in America. The following is a summary of their findings.
Colclough and Beck’s study examines data from the National Longitudinal Survey of the High School Class of 1972. The longitudinal data was collected on a cohort of high school seniors who were re-interviewed over a seven year period (from 1972 through 1979) and merged with data on the schools they attended over that period. The original sample of 22,000 seniors was limited to those for whom data was available for all follow-up surveys and then further restricted to males to limit methodological and theoretical issues because the social reproduction process for women "may be" significantly different and more complex than that for men. The final sample included 5,671 students after excluding cases with missing data.
Three major mechanisms of social class reproduction considered by Colclough and Beck as contributing to their analyses by use of the reproduction model are: 1) the allocation of students into public versus private schools; 2) the socioeconomic composition of school communities, and 3) the placement of students into curriculum tracks within the schools.
Colclough and Beck found that the marginal distribution of social class from origins to destination remained fairly stable over the seven year period, with 34 and 38 percent having mental positions and 65 and 61 percent having manual positions respectively. However, the authors contend that this does not indicate that virtually complete class reproduction has occurred: the overall rate of reproduction was 64.31 percent for the sample which is noted to be 19.76 percent greater than would be expected on the basis of random assignment given the marginal distributions of class. Overall, the summary statistics reported demonstrated that social class reproduction is more prevalent for both classes than is class mobility, although the amount of mobility is reportedly not insignificant.
The overall rate of social class reproduction, as well as the class-specific rate, did not vary by school type but differed significantly according to curriculum track. Being allocated to a vocational track increased the overall rate of reproduction whereas the college-bound track was found to significantly diminish the likelihood of reproduction. It did not appear that being channeled into a general track had any important effect on the likelihood of class reproduction. These findings were reported as consistent with Rosenbaum’s (1976) "tournament selection" thesis which showed the downward mobility of college track students being far more likely than the upward mobility of vocational track students. The effects of tracking were contingent upon class origins: for those in the manual class, being in a vocational track significantly increased the probability of remaining in the manual class while being assigned to the college-bound track had the opposite effect; membership in the college-bound track increased the likelihood of class mobility. The reverse was true for those of mental class origins.
Tracking had a much stronger effect on reproduction than school community, and these structures were not found to interact. The probability of downward mobility from the mental class (0.2993) was over three times greater than the probability of upward mobility from the manual class (0.0925). The same analysis for public schools with the inclusion of race as a control variable did not alter these findings. However, race significantly interacted with school community for manual origin students; reproduction was greater for both races in communities where the opposite race dominates. That is, while class reproduction among manual origin nonwhites is more likely in low minority communities, it is more likely for whites in communities with more minorities and lower incomes.
Colclough and Beck found strong evidence to support claims that education is an important factor in the reproduction of social class in America. Reproduction exceeded mobility for each class and exceeded the authors’ expectations based on random class assignment. According to Colclough and Beck, the data suggested that the class reproduction which occurs is a product, almost exclusively, of curriculum tracking within schools because convincing evidence could not be found that either school type or the socioeconomic makeup of the school community were major contributing factors to social class reproduction. While the general tendencies in selection and reproduction based on class reproduction theories are supported by Colclough and Beck’s findings, they contend that their data also demonstrate that a sizable proportion of students is selected into schooling structures that are virtually ignored by reproduction theorists. They offer as examples that, of the subjects in their study, 54.37 percent of the male students in college tracks and 56.07 percent of the students in private schools have manual class backgrounds, and nearly 1 out of 5 male students in vocational tracks had mental class origins. The reproduction rates for each class revealed varying amounts of mobility. Though class reproduction dominates their findings, a "substantial amount" of class mobility occurs. The class reproduction of the mental-manual division of labor through the channeling of students’ class origins into similar class destinations is a predominant pattern within the three schooling structures Colclough and Beck examined. Further, when overall class reproduction is examined, the class origins of between fifty-six and seventy-six percent of the male students in each structural division are reproduced. Closer examination of reproduction within each social class is said to provide even stronger evidence for class reproduction revealing distinct, predicted patterns for each class.8
Curriculum tracking was shown to be the critical determinant of reproduction in this study. Students from manual class backgrounds are over twice as likely to be placed in a vocational track, and those who are assigned to vocational tracks have an eighty-nine percent chance of being channeled into a manual class destination. Similarly, students with a mental class origin are 1.6 times more likely to be placed in a college-bound track and 61.56 percent of college-track students are channeled into mental class destinations.9 Reproduction patterns are not dramatically altered when race is introduced as a control factor except that mental class nonwhites experience greater reproduction in economically advantaged communities while manual class white students in those same communities experience decreased class reproduction.
Despite the overall supportive evidence, Colclough and Beck conclude that their findings concerning the extent of class mobility refutes the highly deterministic flavor of most reproduction theories. The authors found that, even among groups where reproduction is predictably high (as in the cases of mental class students in college-bound tracks or manual origin students in vocational tracks), class mobility is noted. Colclough and Beck assert that this is not readily explainable by simple economic reproduction theories which they say have neglected the selection of non-predicted students into nontraditional educational structures (for example, manual origin students into private schools) as well as neglected factors which allow non-reproduction among those students whose selection into such structures was hypothesized. While the authors agree that a general, reinforcing "correspondence" surely exists between education and economic institutions in both structure and process, they say that this correspondence is not complete nor is it uniform across all schooling structures.
The authors offer possible reasons for this. First, students from the working class are often sent to parochial schools and there receive extra encouragement for higher levels of attainment from their families and schools in addition to religious training. Further, innovative teachers who encourage creativity and initiative even among average students do exist in public schools, and high quality magnet schools are being located within disadvantaged areas which are reported to give some of these manual origin students a greater opportunity for mobility. Finally, Colclough and Beck note Rosenbaum’s suggestion that schooling structures are not always successful in ensuring that advantaged students maintain their own advantaged class positions. Thus, while these patterns of mobility are more the exceptions than the rule, they exist in sufficient quantity so as to require a more adequate explanation by reproduction theorists.10 Colclough and Beck suggest that the more recent contributions of cultural reproduction theories such as Apple’s and Willis’ may extend the reproduction framework to allow interpretation of their seemingly anomalous findings while not violating the basic paradigmatic assumptions upon which economic reproduction theories are grounded.
Cultural reproduction proponents rightfully stress the day-to-day resistance of students and teachers to these tendencies toward class reproduction, and this resistance may help to explain in part Colclough and Beck’s findings of a degree of mobility. As the authors aptly point out, some mobility is important for maintaining the legitimacy of a system which supports an ideology of equal opportunity. Conventional wisdom and the literature suggest that this mobility is normally achieved via education.
Thus, we must ponder, just how level is the playing field in education?
Inequalities in Educational Opportunities
There is much support for the contention that inequalities exist within the American educational system where children are mandated to attend school. Bowles (1977), Bowles and Gintis (1976), Jencks, et al. (1972), Kozol (1991), Mickelson and Smith (1995), Persell (1979), and many others charge that, in the American institution of education, the deck is clearly stacked against the poor. Curriculum tracking, as noted by Colclough and Beck (1986), is a crucial mechanism in social reproduction. Another such mechanism, according to Mickelson and Smith (1995), is the hidden curriculum which they suggest is two separate yet related processes: first, the content and process of education differ for children according to their race, gender, and social class; secondly, these differences help reproduce inequalities based on race, gender, and social class characterized in US society. (p. 299)
On the other hand, those such as Edward C. Banfield, Arthur Jensen, Daniel P. Moynihan, Herrnstein and Murray, and others contend that the lower IQs, different values, inferior genes, etc. of the poor are to blame for lesser performances and the gap in years of schooling, and they attribute economic disparities between the upper- and ‘lower’- classes to a lack of educational success (which, they contend, is due to lower class members’ lesser IQs, different values, etc.). However, such studies fail to explore such inequalities as those experienced by many poor people in the system of education as those found by educator and journalist Jonathan Kozol (1991), nor are victims of these inequalities studied longitudinally to ascertain the possible effects.
Kozol (1991) explored first-hand the inequalities of various schools within the poor sections of several inner cities. The conditions of the schools that he visited were especially frightening in this day of presumed "equal" rights and "equal" education. Classes were often conducted without textbooks or materials; some classes were taught in old boiler rooms; many classrooms had no windows and were either swelteringly hot or unbearably cold; many schools had ceilings caving in, waterfalls cascading down indoor stairways, and rain flooded hallways; one school was built upon toxic ground that often exploded when children rode their bikes across it, but classes went on as though there were no danger; one school had neither cafeteria nor provisions for children’s lunches; most teachers were found too bored and/or too uninterested to be concerned with teaching; the list goes on and on. Kozol found many of the students in these schools bright, eager to learn, and full of promise--but he held little hope for their futures. Who could begin to suggest that the schools Kozol visited are equal or the appalling conditions he found merited--for any reason? Who could realistically expect the children in these schools to succeed--regardless of their intelligence levels or abilities? Most often these children are not taught with the same zeal that teachers in upper-class schools have, and they do not have the edge of being able to learn the breadth of subjects that are taught in upper-class schools nor do they have access to the materials necessary for learning to take place. There are many implications of conditions such as these Kozol found, and these implications need to be addressed and explored .
Evidence supports the contention that schools are unequal and reproduce inequalities in American society. Whether or not education promotes social reproduction intentionally or unintentionally, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that education plays an important role in the reproduction of social class. Although this is true and the reasons necessitating the achievement of degrees in order to fulfill job requirements is questionable, the need for higher education steadily increases.
The Role of Education in the Division of Labor
The expansion of the economy assisted the expansion of education in the 19th century according to Bowles (1977), and "as work roles became more complicated and interrelated, ...employers began to look for workers who had internalized the production-related values of the firms' managers;" (p. 139) hence, the importance placed on higher education for employment purposes. This importance is documented by Berryman and Bailey (1992) who note that the workplace is changing due to advanced technology, and thus requirements of work constantly change and employers increasingly demand that employees have higher level skills. (Pp. 1-2) Persell (1979) also notes the importance of education on economic outcomes: "The instrumental-meritocratic ideology suggests that economic development and prosperity are largely dependent upon the development of cognitive skills (increasingly through formal education) and that those who are most proficient in these skills will advance farthest in the occupational and rewards hierarchy." (Pp. 135-136) Further, Schrag (1994) notes that "Education, and especially higher education, is regarded as the sine qua non of position and power in this society." (p. 98) In addition, Bowles (1977) charges that schools in the US have evolved to meet the needs of employers by producing a disciplined, skilled labor force and that, as the importance of a skilled and well-educated labor force has grown in the US economy, inequalities in the school system have gained importance for the reproduction of social class. Wagenaar (1987) concurs; he suggests that high schools help keep the undereducated and underskilled youth out of the labor market. Persell (1979) notes that "social inequality is related to unequal educational achievement and attainment," and while "individual characteristics may of course contribute [to low achievement]...the potential role of educational systems for educational outcomes must always be considered." (p. 152)
Most studies agree with Bowles’ (1977), Jencks’ (1972), Mickelson and Smith’s (1995), Persell’s (1979), Schrag’s (1994), and Wagenaar’s (1987) assertions that education is intimately bound to one’s occupational and societal position in life although there is some dissension as to whether this means is equal and whether there is merit to the requirement of higher education for employment purposes. This question of merit deserves attention and exploration considering evidence of increased credential inflation in the job market. Credential inflation directly undermines the achievement of lower class members in higher education and serves to continuously ‘up the ante’: "Due to credential inflation, previous educational requirements for good jobs now within reach of the many dispossessed groups, are inadequate and insufficient in today’s labor market." (Mickelson and Smith, 1995, p. 299) Further, Mickelson and Smith (1995), Bowles and Gintis (1976), Jenkins et al. (1972), and Persell (1979) suggest that equality of educational opportunity (indicated by the number of years achieved) has failed to produce anything resembling equality of income.11 As Mickelson and Smith (1995) point out, "Whatever increase in the equality of educational opportunity has resulted from the [educational] reforms...it has not led to a significantly greater equality of life chances, at least not measured by income, one of the most telling and broadest gauges of equality in the United States." (p. 296) Further in the question of merit to increasingly higher educational demands for lucrative positions, Persell "finds much support" for Bowles and Gintis’ (1976) and Jencks’ (1972) views that "that the cognitive content of education has relatively little causal importance for occupational status or income." (p. 155) "For them," Persell notes, "social position is related to both educational attainment and to life outcomes." (p. 155) Importantly, Persell observes that, "[Bowles and Gintis and Jencks] approximate the first view, stressing the importance of social origin, with education being a finishing touch." (p. 155) Further, Persell found "a strong causal relation between social position and education, but no causal relation between education and high social position," which indicates that one of high social position is likely to have more years of education than one of lower origins, but "education [can] never secure a high social position" because even those who have equal educations secure positions with lower salaries than their upper-class counterparts. (p. 153) This is strongly supported by Bowles and Gintis’ (1976)12 and Jencks’ (1972) findings.
Despite this, the total percentage of post-secondary students who began post-secondary education in 1989-90 and had attained or were still enrolled in college in 1994 was as follows (US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics): 73.1 percent of those in the highest SES quartile began post-secondary education as compared with 59.8 percent in the middle SES quartile and 46.9 percent in the lower SES quartile; of these, 39.7 percent, 45.7 percent, and 14.7 percent, respectively, had either attained a degree or were still enrolled in 1994. Why do so few of lower SES graduate? Concern for dropout rates increased in the 1960s when technology expanded, according to Bowles (1977), and the literature is rich in studies that explore barriers to the poor’s achievement in elementary and secondary education and pursuit of higher education.
Dropouts and Pursuers
Barriers to Educational Pursuit
Many barriers are identified as making lower class pursuit of education difficult at best, though possibly stopping short of entirely blocking pursuit altogether. There is abundant research to confirm that many lower-origin youths drop out of high school before achieving a high school diploma. This is consistent with Bowles (1977) discussion of the history of education above: he noted that many working class students exercised dropout behavior in high school in the past and that this has not changed much in the past few decades. According to the literature this is true, although reports vary in the percentage of students who drop out of high school: percentages range from 12.9 (Lichter et al., 1993, p. 58) to one-quarter (Morris-Bilotti, 1992, p. 9) to one-third. Wagenaar (1987) reports that Ekstrom et al. (1986), using High School and Beyond data, note a dropout rate of 26 percent for the lower class versus 13 and 8 percent for the middle and higher classes respectively. (p. 229) Wagenaar (1987) himself notes the figure as "hovering around 25 to 30 percent since the late 1960s." (p. 222)
Of those lower class members who achieve a high school diploma, most do not elect to continue their education. Of those who do, the number who achieve degrees is much smaller than those of upper-class origins who attain degrees. Sewell and Shah (1977) contend that "there is a point beyond which further education is a privilege of some rather than a right of all individuals whose intellectual capabilities qualify them for continued education." (p. 199)13 In addition, "...social class [is] an important determinant of who will transfer or return to college [after dropping out] and, consequently, of eventual graduation" (Eckland, quoted in Sewell and Shah, p. 198). Further, "The student who gets to college has already overcome most of whatever handicaps his home environment offered; once there, his chances of graduating are much more dependent upon his ability and much less upon his family background than were his chances of getting into college in the first place" (Wolfe, quoted in Sewell and Shah, p. 198). This, Sewell and Shah (1977) contend, is because "prior socioeconomic selection has already exerted much of its influence on who attends college. After this point intelligence, probably as it is reflected in performance, is more important." (p. 211) Nonetheless, Sewell and Shah (1977) are quick to point out that, even among those who enter college, SES continues to exert an influence that is independent of intelligence in determining college graduation for both genders as shown by the lower number of low SES who graduate: 52.4 percent of low SES, high ability male youths enroll in college compared to 90.7 percent of high status males with equal ability. Of these high ability male youths, the percentage of low SES males who graduate college is 38.5, while that of their higher SES counterparts is 70.6 (Sewell and Shah, 1977, Pp. 212-213). Further, "similar trends hold for less able youths" and females (Sewell and Shah, 1977, p. 212).14
What are the mechanisms that serve to weed out the ‘undeserving,’ dissuade them from completing the level of education that is a prerequisite to college, prevent even those with high ability who complete high school to continue their education, possibly assist lower class members to view college as a nonalternative, and further exert influence upon those who have entered college? The literature is rich with information on such mechanisms. The following important study by Vanfossen et al. (1989) explores the effects of one such mechanism, curriculum tracking.
To begin, Vanfossen et al. define curriculum tracking as "the grouping of students into course sequences and classrooms on the basis of personal qualities, performances, or aspirations [and] is a significant feature of the social organization of schools: Around 90 percent of high schools engage in some form of tracking (National Education Association 1968)." (p. 171) They note that tracking is of particular interest to sociologists because of its "possible role in stratification." (p. 171)
Tracking is operationalized considering that "Prior research findings pertinent to the role of tracking fall into three categories." (p.172) First, tracking helps to "maintain and perpetuate class status from one generation to another by sorting children from different backgrounds into different curricular programs." (p. 172) In this type of tracking, children are said to receive differential treatments and experience different learning environments. Examples of those who purportedly champion this view are Breton, 1970; Schafer and Olexa, 1971; Rosenbaum, 1975, 1976; Alexander and McDill, 1976; Persell, 1977; Alexander, Cook, and McDill, 1978; Alexander and Ecklund, 1980; Eder, 1981; Oakes, 1982; Morgan, 1983; and Jones, Vanfossen, and Spade, 1985. (p. 172) The next view holds that tracking plays a minimal role because students are tracked according to their abilities and motivations more than on the basis of social class membership. (p. 172) Tracking in this case is viewed as an "opportunity for status mobility," and differential treatment is a mechanism for overcoming status inequalities. (p. 172) Proponents of this view are said to be Jencks et al., 1972; Rehberg and Rosenthal, 1978; Heyns, 1974; Davis and Haller, 1981; and Alexander and Cook, 1982. (p. 172) The third category implies that the debate over tracking is irrelevant because tracking has no significant impact upon achievement, values, nor educational outcomes. (p. 172) Advocates of this view are reportedly Jencks et al., 1972; Sewell and Hauser, 1980; Alexander and Cook, 1982; and Kulik and Kulik, 1982. (p. 172)
Multiple regression and effects coding15 were used to analyze data for those students who self-reported the same track locations in their sophomore and senior years. Vanfossen et al. report that, "consistent with most earlier research, academic performance has a strong relationship to track location." (p. 174) In addition, fifty-three percent of students in the top SES quartile were in the academic track, and only 19 percent of their bottom SES counterparts were in an academic track. (p. 174) Moreover, there are substantial differences among social classes in ultimate track destination, and track location greatly influences academic performance. Regression results also suggest that tracking is successful in that "curriculum tracks do what they are supposed to do--funnel students into different sequences of study." (p. 178)
Track location also "modestly affect[s] changes in satisfaction with school," and both academic and general track variables "are significant predictors of post-secondary educational experiences and...the academic track variable is particularly important in the equation, more so than any other variable in the model except 10th- grade educational expectations." (Pp. 178-179) Vanfossen et al. conclude from these findings that "tracking appears to influence not only learning and other characteristics of student life but also adult outcomes." (p. 179) In addition, the academic track variable "has a modest and statistically significant effect upon senior[s’] self-esteem." Those students in the academic track were reported to experience an increase in self-esteem from their sophomore to senior years while the self-esteem of those in the general track remained stable, and those in the vocational track experienced a decline in self-esteem. (p. 179)
A significant conclusion of their research is that "the strong relationship between socioeconomic origin and track location (gamma =.38), which may be even larger than it appears at first glance because of the influence of socioeconomic origin upon test performance (gamma =.51), lends support to the status maintenance hypothesis." (p. 185) Additionally, "the organization of students through tracking appears to provide greater opportunities for students from the middle to upper classes (because class is related to track location) and for some students of higher performance (because track location is related to performance) not only because it helps such students learn but because it affects course-taking patterns, aspirations, friendships, and classroom environment." (p. 187)
Another study which offers much insight into barriers and the dropout phenomenon is that of Wagenaar (1987). Wagenaar examines existing literature and offers a comprehensive review of many causes and consequences of dropout behavior as well as policy implications. In "What Do We Know About Dropping Out of High School?" Wagenaar explores reasons for quitting school given by dropouts, background factors, sex, race, social class, dropouts’ orientations, and school factors--both individual and structural. The following is a compendium of Wagenaar’s (1987) findings:
Dropout studies are usually retrospective which Wagenaar contends is beneficial to understanding dropouts’ definitions of their situations by examining their stated reasons for quitting. The reason most often cited for dropping out of school pertains to school: over half of the reasons given by males and one-third of those given by females are school-related. Wagenaar suggests that both males and females may drop out because of a desire to leave the subservient student role in which most high schools place them. Other reasons dropouts give for leaving school reflect the current demands of their lives (i.e., school, family, work) and vary by gender. Rumberger notes that "over half of the reasons given by males and one-third of those given by females are school related" (Rumberger, quoted in Wagenaar, p. 226). Peng shows that the High School and Beyond (HS&B) data corroborate this finding: among male dropouts, 36 percent noted poor grades, 35 percent disliked school, 21 percent could not get along with their teachers, and 13 percent were expelled; among females, 31 percent disliked school, and 30 percent cited poor performance in school (Peng, cited in Wagenaar, p. 226). Wagenaar reports that similar results can be found in Pawlovich (1985) and Doss and Holley (1985). (p. 226)
The second most frequently cited category of reasons reflects traditional sex-role stereotyping: economic or work issues were cited by one-fourth of the males versus 15 percent of the females, and family issues were noted by one-third of the females versus almost none of the males (from Rumberger, cited in Wagenaar, p. 226). Financial need itself does not appear to be a major factor in the decision to drop out according to Quay and Allen (cited in Wagenaar, p. 227). Rather, potential male dropouts (and females to a lesser degree) seem to be more strongly attracted by the status of having a job (a "pull" factor; financial need is a "push" factor), and for females, marriage and pregnancy are noted to be the major attractions: Peng found that 31 percent, and Morgan found that 37 percent, of females report marriage as their reason for dropping out while 23 percent (from Peng) and 45 percent (from Morgan) of females report pregnancy (noted in Wagenaar, p. 227).
Wagenaar contends that our society differentiates primarily on the basis of sex, race, and social class, and therefore these three statuses have a major effect on how people are treated in institutions and thus should be examined. Four other reasons that these three variables should be examined is suggested by Natriello et al. (noted in Wagenaar, pp. 227-228):
1. Their effects change over time. For example, the dropout rates for black males and both black and white females have dropped to an all-time low in the past 15 years while the dropout rates for white and Hispanic males have reached an all-time high. Such changes might reflect changing orientations toward completion of high school and/or changes in other life experiences.
2. Researchers need to control for these factors when examining other factors in order to observe how other factors interact with race, class, and sex.
3. Most schools do not take these variables into account when reporting dropout rates.
4. The dropout rate could have been exacerbated by recent school reforms that may have had differential effects on the subgroups.
Although dropout rates for males are slightly higher, rates are similar for males and females. HS&B data show that, among male and female sophomores, the dropout rate was 15 percent and 13 percent respectively. (p. 228) In addition, Doss and Holley studied a cohort of 14-year-olds and found that by the time the cohorts reached age 18, 24 percent of males and 23 percent of females had dropped out (cited in Wagenaar, p. 228).
Minorities have the highest dropout rates. HS&B data show that rates for Hispanics and blacks (18 percent and 17 percent respectively) are much higher than that of whites (12 percent) or Asians (3 percent). (p. 228) The rate for American Indians and Alaskan natives is 29 percent, according to Peng (noted in Wagenaar, p. 228). Other such data support findings that the dropout rate is highest for minorities. Wagenaar suggests that the higher dropout rate for minorities may reflect overt and covert discrimination in the schools and include both institutionalized and individual discrimination. (p. 228) He also feels that minorities may drop out due to perceived and/or anticipated discrimination in the workforce and in other aspects of society, and this may convince them that a high school diploma will not make much difference in their anticipated experiences. Support for this contention may be found in MacLeod’s (1987) work. Minority rates may also be a reflection of social class differences because minorities tend to have lower class origins. (p. 228)
Interactions exist between gender and race. Doss and Holley and Rumberger note that no appreciable difference exists between white males and females, but black males are somewhat more likely than black females, and Hispanic males are somewhat more likely than Hispanic females, to drop out of high school (cited in Wagenaar, pp. 228-229). Rumberger notes that, among females, whites are more likely (36 percent) to note school-related reasons for dropping out; among males, blacks and whites are equally likely (56 percent and 55 percent respectively) to note this reason (cited in Wagenaar, p. 229). Hispanic males are more likely to note economic reasons than are either blacks or whites (38 percent vs. 23 percent and 22 percent respectively), as are Hispanic females (24 percent vs. 15 percent and 14 percent respectively). Black females are more likely (45 percent) to cite pregnancy and marriage as reasons for dropping out than are Hispanics (30 percent) or whites (31 percent). (p. 229) Wagenaar points out that these class and minority statistics reveal that differences in reasons for dropping out of high school do not simply reflect whites versus minorities because distinct differences exist between Hispanics and blacks. (p. 229)
Ekstrom et al. and Wehlage and Rutter used multiple regression techniques on the HS&B data and found that social class has a greater effect on dropout rates than does race (cited in Wagenaar, p. 230). Wagenaar reports that virtually all studies show social class differences in dropout behaviors and suggests the following to explain these differences: Parents in higher social classes may serve as better role models, particularly pertaining to the value placed on education. Further, these parents may spend more time with their children and hold higher expectations for them; this in turn may increase children’s academic abilities and aspirations. (Pp. 229-230) Expected educational attainment is a key predictor of dropping out in spite of the controls used for social class, race, and academic performance (Wehlage and Rutter, cited in Wagenaar, p. 231), and educational aspirations differ dramatically by social class. Ekstrom et al. report that parents of dropouts are less likely to monitor or show interest in their children’s school-related and other activities, and Poole and Low note that dropouts spend less time discussing things with parents (noted in Wagenaar, p. 230). Other features of dropouts’ family lives include fewer study aids in the home and less opportunity for nonschool-related learning. Family structure might explain social class differences: lower class students are more likely to come from single-parent or large families. Students from single-parent families are twice as likely to drop out, and being part of a large family is a good indicator that a student will drop out of school (Rumberger, cited in Wagenaar, p. 230). Wagenaar suggests that social class may affect dropouts contextually: higher-class parents generally live in wealthier neighborhoods and thus more money is available for education. This has effects ranging from attracting more highly skilled teachers to providing more specialized services to providing better facilities in which to learn. The correlation between a neighborhood’s social class and the nature of its school facilities and experiences has been well documented by Ballantine (cited in Wagenaar, p. 230).
Wagenaar suggests that there are other background variables which relate to dropping out of high school. For example, Ekstrom et al. report differences with respect to region: whites in the South are more likely to drop out than whites in other regions of the country, but blacks in the South are less likely to drop out than blacks in other regions (cited in Wagenaar, p. 230). Rumberger notes this difference to be particularly pronounced for males (cited in Wagenaar, p. 230). In addition, urban students are more likely than nonurban students to drop out. Geographic mobility is also a predictor of dropout behavior as is the education level of the same-sex parent (from Rumberger, cited in Wagenaar, p. 230). Wagenaar suggests that the latter indicates the involvement of congruent sex-role socialization. (p. 230)
Personal characteristics may effect the propensity to drop out: The Minnesota State Department of Education and Sewell et al. find a lower self-concept among dropouts. (Wagenaar, Pp. 230-231) Further, Ekstrom et al. report higher self-esteem and differences in locus of control in those who graduate (cited in Wagenaar, p. 231). Dropouts display a significantly more externalized sense of control suggesting that dropouts feel they have relatively little control over their lives (from Amster and Lazarus, Ekstrom et al., and Hayes and Page; noted in Wagenaar, p 231). In addition, Ekstrom et al. report that the connection between locus of control and dropping out is especially pronounced among minorities (cited in Wagenaar, p. 231). Importantly, Wehlage and Rutter point out that whether features such as self-concept and locus of control are brought to school as products of earlier socialization or are products of school experiences is uncertain (cited in Wagenaar, p. 231). It is suggested by Wagenaar that a lesser sense of control, such as that shown in those with an external locus of control, may be attributed to the discrimination and poverty often experienced by minorities, and school experiences of those with low self-concept and external locus of control might simply reinforce prior socialization experiences. (p. 231)
Ekstrom et al. find that dropouts show differences in basic life values (noted in Wagenaar, p. 231). Dropouts are reportedly more likely to emphasize having a great deal of money and moving away, and they are less likely to emphasize finding steady work, having strong friendships, living close to parents, and being a community leader. Dropouts purportedly expect to attain lower levels of education: Wehlage and Rutter performed a discriminate analysis on HS&B data and found that expected school attainment was "by far the most discriminating variable," even when they included such variables as aptitude, grades, social class, and race in the function (cited in Wagenaar, p. 231). Dropouts select as friends other potential dropouts who are alienated from school. They are less likely to attend class regularly, are less popular, make lower grades, and show less interest in school and in attending college (Ekstrom et al., noted in Wagenaar, p. 231). Dropouts are also more socially involved outside school (according to Timberlake, cited in Wagenaar, p. 231).
Orientations toward and involvement with work between dropouts and pursuers also differ. According to Ekstrom et al., dropouts are more likely to be working for pay and work more hours than do those who stay in school (noted in Wagenaar, Pp. 231-232). However, Timberlake’s study of marginal black females found that employment was more common among those who persisted in school rather than those who dropped out (noted in Wagenaar, p. 232). Barro negated Timberlake’s findings by showing that the number of hours worked is significantly related to the likelihood of dropping out among both males and females: students working up to 14 hours per week were not significantly likely to drop out, but those working 15 to 21 hours had a 50 percent higher dropout rate; those working 22 or more hours per week had a 100 percent higher dropout rate than those working 15 hours per week or less (from Barro, cited in Wagenaar, p. 232). Overall, dropouts reported that their jobs were more enjoyable and important than school, and potential dropouts stress sociability, autonomy, pleasure, and employment more than those who stay in school. (p. 232)
The best predictors of the decision to drop out of school are school-related individual experiences according to McDill et al. (noted in Wagenaar, p. 232). The school experience is the best predictor of academic success, according to Kaplan and Luck and Howard and Anderson (cited in Wagenaar, p. 232). In 1982, Quay and Allen noted that achievement differences between dropouts and those who stay in school persisted with controls for social class and ability (noted in Wagenaar, p. 232). Performance is an especially good indicator of who will drop out of school and who will not. Grades of potential dropouts are substantially lower than those who stay: over 40 percent of dropouts report grades of mostly Ds or below as compared to less than 10 percent of others who stay (Peng, noted in Wagenaar, p. 232). These differences exist across social class and ability levels. Wehlage and Rutter found similar standardized coefficients for social class, grades, and ability (cited in Wagenaar, p. 232). However, academic ability does not hold the same value as a predictor: Elliot et al. summarized several studies showing that as many as three-fourths of dropouts have the ability to do superior or passing work, and Richardson and Gerlach found that black dropouts are intellectually more capable than blacks who persist in school (noted in Wagenaar, p. 232). Thus, academic performance is correlated more strongly with the decision to drop out than is ability. In addition, potential dropouts indicate more alienation than do those who persist: dropouts are substantially more likely to be truant, absent, late, and experience substantially greater discipline problems in school; twice as many dropouts are found to cut classes (54 percent vs. 25 percent), and three times as many were expelled (31 percent vs. 10 percent) (Ekstrom et al., Quay and Allen, Wehlage and Rutter, noted in Wagenaar, p. 232). According to Alpert and Dunham, misbehavior in school is the most important indicator of whether or not academically marginal students will drop out (noted in Wagenaar, Pp. 232-233). Overall, dropouts are less interested in school, less satisfied with their educational experiences, feel less popular and less important in the eyes of others, and are more likely to feel that others see them as troublemakers (Ekstrom et al., cited in Wagenaar, p. 233). Further, dropouts are less involved with school activities, particularly athletics (Ekstrom et al. and Combs and Cooley, cited in Wagenaar, p. 233).
Kaplan and Luck find academic performance in elementary school to be a predictor of future dropout behavior and note that dropouts are more likely to be overage upon entering high school because of retention in earlier grades (cited in Wagenaar, p. 233). In Chicago, dropouts ranged from 37 percent of normal-age freshman vs. 60 percent of those overage by one year vs. 69 percent of those overage by two years (from Hamilton, noted in Wagenaar, p. 233). Similar studies have shown comparable results. Wagenaar suggests that these differences may reflect the labeled status bestowed upon overage students by peers and teachers; this status affects how students view themselves and thus how they are treated by others. (p. 233)
Ekstrom et al. examined behavior and grades because they are purportedly strong predictors of dropout behavior. They found the best predictors of problem behavior to be male, low verbal ability, external locus of control, lack of home support for education, low educational aspirations held for a student by his/her mother, and lack of parental involvement in selecting a high school curriculum, while the best predictor of good grades includes high verbal ability, more time spent on homework, being female, strong family support for education, placement in the academic curriculum, internal locus of control, and involvement in extracurricular activities (Ekstrom et al., noted in Wagenaar, p. 233). Wagenaar notes that the predictors for behavior and grades are very similar but show opposite values. (p. 233) Thus, he argues that good grades and problem school behavior are simply opposite dimensions of the same construct (integration into the school as an institution) instead of two different constructs. (p. 233)
Sewell et al. note that relatively few researchers have investigated the role of structural factors (cited in Wagenaar, p. 234). Wagenaar asserts that this is partly because such data is often difficult to obtain. However, structural factors may mediate some of the individual-level variables involved with dropping out (according to Anderson and Tissler, noted in Wagenaar, p. 234). The relatively small amount of research done on school structural factors tends to make dropping out an individual problem rather than putting into the social context that is also necessary. (p. 234) This type of research needs to be increased, Wagenaar asserts, and notes Sexton’s discovery:
Sexton found 203 dropouts in the last year that a high school was open in one residence area; after the transfer to a new high school the following year, there were only 75 dropouts (from Sexton, cited in Wagenaar, p. 234). In the second area Sexton studied, the figures were 153 and 87 respectively. In the third area, the school that closed had one of the lowest dropout rates in the district; after students were transferred to a school with even lower rates, the dropout rate decreased even further. Sexton also discovered that several schools had relatively low dropout rates for minorities even though the district-wide rate for minorities was high, and the black dropout rate was found to be associated more closely with the dropout rate for the entire school than with the proportion of blacks enrolled in the school (from Sexton, noted in Wagenaar, p. 234). Two schools Sexton investigated had 8 percent black enrollment but overall dropout rates of 18 percent and 4 percent; the respective black dropout rates were 28 percent and 6 percent. Sexton then examined the effect of black desegregation on black dropout rates and found no correlation between the black desegregation index and the black dropout rate (Sexton, noted in Wagenaar, p. 234). These results suggest that the school itself plays a critical role in affecting dropout rates (from Sexton, cited in Wagenaar, p. 234). Unfortunately, although Sexton makes an important contribution to the literature, Wagenaar notes a serious drawback: "Sexton (1985) shows clearly that dropout rates are a product of the schools themselves rather than residence or racial distribution, but his research fails to identify the features of these schools that may be responsible for the lower rates." (p. 234) However, the point is well taken that there appears to be a significant correlation between a school’s overall dropout rate and individual dropouts.
Wagenaar suggests the following as possible structural factors associated with dropout rates:
1. Size of the school: The size affects the variety and extensiveness of the programs offered: larger schools are more likely to have more specialized personnel and provide a wider variety of extracurricular activities (although the likelihood of participation in such activities is greater in smaller schools). In addition, larger schools are more typically overcrowded and offer more nonacademic programs. On the other hand, smaller high schools appear to generate greater satisfaction and involvement. Stroughton and Grady cite research showing a direct correlation between the size of a school and its dropout rates: smaller schools (defined as those with up to 200 students) have the lowest dropout rates (noted in Wagenaar, p. 235). However, Stroughton and Grady also found that the very large schools in their study had lower dropout rates than did medium size schools, which they presume to be because the larger schools offered a wide variety of nonacademic courses (cited in Wagenaar, p. 235).
2. School climate: Although it has been studied extensively, research is insufficiently clear about the effects of school climate on students (Anderson, noted in Wagenaar, p. 235). In 1986, Fine studied a large high school and found low levels of empowerment among the staff and high levels of alienation among the students. In earlier research, Fine had found that disempowerment among staff correlated highly with disparaging attitudes toward students (cited in Wagenaar, p. 235). McDill et al. identify three components of school climate (noted in Wagenaar, p. 235).:
a. Governance: A school’s having clear rules and consistent enforcement which reportedly produces an orderly environment. An orderly environment in turn produces academic achievement.
b. Rewards: A system of rewards must be attainable and reflect students’ efforts and competence. Rewards are needed because the customary reward of grades does not necessarily matter to potential dropouts.
c. A drive for academic excellence: This drive needs to occur at both the school and classroom levels. This type of effort involves individualized learning and makes rewards contingent on proficiency.
Wagenaar adds that the control structure of the school is yet another factor of climate. (p. 235) While Wehlage and Rutter note few differences between dropouts and their counterparts who stay in school regarding perceived teacher interest, effectiveness of school discipline, and fairness of discipline, Timberlake notes that the black female marginal students who persisted in school found their teachers to be more caring than did their dropout counterparts (cited in Wagenaar, p. 236). Further, Pritchett and Willower found a significant relationship between students’ perceptions of custodial pupil-controlled behavior and negative attitudes toward school.
3. School quality: This variable is found to be significantly related to dropping out (from Hill, cited in Wagenaar, p. 236). The availability of vocational training (from Redfering and Cook) and the quality of teachers (from Beirn et al.) were found to be important structural factors (cited in Wagenaar, p. 236). Fine found that fiscal arrangements affect the dropout rate: when school funding is based on the number of courses taken per student instead of on a simple per capita basis (as was the case in the school she studied), remedial courses only count as half-courses, and tutoring doesn’t count at all. These types of fiscal arrangements were found to work against underachievers and actually encourage the neglect of dropouts and foster organizational self-preservation (Fine, noted in Wagenaar, p. 236). The type, amount, and quality of support services possibly reflect the specialization of schools and affect the dropout rate directly and indirectly: Corwin and Wagenaar found that the nature of school-community relationships may help define and alter boundary-spanning activities of school organization thereby possibly affecting the performances of schools (cited in Wagenaar, p. 236).
As important as the behavior of dropping out, so are the consequences of such an action. Compared to the literature on possible causes of dropout behavior, literature on the consequences of dropping out is quite limited, reports Wagenaar. This may largely be due to the research designs employed: typically, studies are retrospective and examine dropouts a year or two after the fact, comparing them to graduates. Dropping out effects employment. Young notes unemployment rates among dropouts and graduates, respectively, for 1979 (cited in Wagenaar, p. 236):
black males: 24 percent vs. 15 percent
black females: 47 percent vs. 23 percent
white males: 14 percent vs. 7 percent
white females: 21 percent vs. 8 percent
Foster reports overall unemployment rates among dropouts and graduates to be 42 percent and 26 percent respectively (noted in Wagenaar, p. 237). HS&B data show that less than half of the dropouts were working full- or part-time, and almost one-third were looking for work two years after dropping out (noted by Wagenaar, p. 237). Wagenaar suggests that this substantial difference is particularly relevant in light of the changes in the labor market today whereby the demands for greater education and technical skills have substantially reduced the opportunities for dropouts because of the ebbing proportion of all blue-collar, farm, and similar jobs. (p. 237) This means that, if the dropout rate remains relatively steady, it will be increasingly difficult for dropouts to find any kind of work; the work they do find will be at the lower end of the prestige scale. (p. 237) Dropouts will experience occupational entrapment, thus over their lifetimes they will earn at least one-fourth less than graduates. (p. 237) McDill reports that about half the difference in lifetime earnings is due to differences in ability and other factors; about half is due to the effects of dropping out of high school (cited in Wagenaar, p. 237).
Another consequence of dropping out is dropouts’ difficulties in social adjustment. This is purportedly manifested in dropouts’ overrepresentation among attempted suicides, substance abusers, and delinquents. In addition, dropouts receive psychiatric treatment and various forms of public assistance more often than graduates (Hathaway; Minnesota State Department of Education; Thornberry et al., cited in Wagenaar, p. 237). Dropouts experience more family problems than do graduates. They marry at an earlier age, their marriages are more likely to be unsatisfactory and end in divorce, they have children at an earlier age, and they are more likely to experience stress in their relationships (Hathaway, Kaplan and Luck, cited in Wagenaar, p. 237). Interestingly, the first follow-up for the HS&B data shows that graduates and dropouts had similar gains in self-esteem and internal locus of control from 1980 to 1982 (Ekstrom et al., Wehlage and Rutter, cited in Wagenaar, p. 237). However, staying in school affects gains in cognitive abilities: Alexander et al. note that the cognitive deficit of dropouts relative to graduates is approximately one-tenth of a standard deviation (about three percentiles on a standardized achievement test) (noted in Wagenaar, p. 237).
Upon experiencing the consequences of dropping out, some dropouts decide it worth the effort to return to school in some capacity: using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth Labor Market Experience, Borus and Carpenter found that one-third of dropouts returned to school within one year of dropping out. (cited in Wagenaar, p. 238) HS&B data show similar rates: 17 percent of dropouts reenroll in school, and 14 percent attain the GED high school equivalency certificate; one-fifth participate in job training or educational activities other than formal educational course work (cited in Wagenaar, p. 238).
Wagenaar suggests that the substantial financial and social costs of the current dropout rate warrants serious attention to policy implications. Even minor reductions would help to address this major social problem. Wagenaar suggests that perhaps the first item on the agenda is to achieve agreement that the dropout situation is, in fact, a problem because many do not view it as such; instead, "people tend to believe that students who drop out would be failures even if they graduated." (p. 239) Bachman et al. note that dropping out is a symptom of a mismatch between certain individuals and the typical high school environment, and dropout behavior is due to limited academic ability, failure in school and delinquent behavior both in and out of school (cited in Wagenaar, p. 238). These problems are not resolved by staying in school. (Bachman et al., cited in Wagenaar, p. 238) Furthermore, many educators downplay the problem to make their schools look good (Morgan and Hammack, cited in Wagenaar, p. 239). For these reasons, Wagenaar feels that consciousness-raising on the dropout phenomenon is a high priority item. In addition, Wagenaar notes that a complex interaction between individual, school, and community factors is active in the decision to drop out. (p. 239) Thus, he recommends that any successful intervention program must incorporate all three of these levels. Very early intervention in the schools is clearly needed to target potential dropouts and provide the requisite school- and community-based intervention. (p. 239) Weidman and Friedman recommend that programs be developed to help potential dropouts address the institutional strains they experience in school, employment, and other settings (cited in Wagenaar, p. 239). Social integration should be a primary goal for any intervention program, says Wagenaar, particularly social integration into nondeviant subcultures in the community. Further, school, community, and employers should work together to provide social structures and opportunities for social interaction in order to reduce the social isolation and normlessness commonly characterizing dropouts. This focus on the interaction of institutions is important in view of the heavy emphasis found in the literature on family background and personal factors. This emphasis can, and sometimes does, lead to "blaming the victim" instead of helping prevent dropout behavior. (p. 239) Wagenaar stresses that both researchers and policy analysts must continue to modify schools in order to provide a more positive, enduring influence on all students.
Does a "more positive, enduring influence" really help the disadvantaged in their pursuit of mobility? Upon considering MacLeod’s (1987) illuminating study, described in Ain’t No Makin’ It, one must ponder this question. MacLeod carried out extensive field research on two groups of young males who lived in a housing project he calls Clarendon Heights.16 What MacLeod found was, in his opinion, a logical choice by many of the youths to drop out of school, for school could not guarantee them any edge whatever in the world of work, and many of these youths recognized this with exceptional clarity. MacLeod spent a great deal of time with his subjects. He moved in near the project to get a better grasp of the environmental conditions that the youths faced every day and to have better access to the youths. MacLeod interviewed the youths as well as ‘hung out’ with them. In addition, he interviewed some of the parents and teachers of the youths. What follows is an account of MacLeod’s (1987) findings concerning underclass youths’ decision to drop out of school and MacLeod’s suggestion that the leveling of aspirations plays a key role in such decisions:
"In contemporary America, the educational system, by sorting students according to ostensibly meritocratic criteria, plays a crucial role in the legitimation of inequality. Because the school deals in the currency of academic credentials, its role in the reproduction of inequality is obscured. Students believe they succeed or fail in school on the basis of merit. By internalizing the blame for failure, students lose their self-esteem and then accept their eventual placement in low-status jobs as the natural outcome of their own shortcomings. If individuals are convinced that they are responsible for their low position in society, then criticism of the social order by the subordinate classes is deflected. The process of social reproduction goes on, unscrutinized and unchallenged." "Because the school devalues the cultural capital of the Hallway Hangers, their chances for academic success are diminished substantially. Although the Hallway Hangers do not see the intricacies of this process taking place, half have remarked that students from "higher" social backgrounds have a better chance to do well in school. The Hallway Hangers have seen their older siblings fail in school; they see their friends fail as well. Even their Clarendon Heights peers who try to succeed in school meet with only modest success; for verification of this, the Hallway Hangers need only look to the Brothers. Thus, the Hallway Hangers question their own capacity to perform well in school..." (Pp. 113-114)
The Hallway Hangers, a predominantly white group, can usually be found ‘hanging out’ in doorway 13 of the Clarendon Heights project smoking marijuana, drinking, and/or just killing time for lack of anything better to do. Most of the Hangers’ families have lived in low-income public housing for as many as 30 years although Slick and Steve have lived in the project for only 6 years and Stoney has lived there for only 3 years (though Stoney’s mother grew up in another project). Most of the boys come from large families where most parent and siblings alike are under- or un- educated. Of the parents, only Boo-Boo’s father (who is a merchant marine) and Frankie’s mother (who holds a full time job) have graduated high school, although Stoney’s mother achieved a GED and secretarial degree. Most of the boys lack a father figure, and most of the boys as well as many of their family members have been in jail or in trouble with the law numerous times. Employment in the families is sporadic, and typically when a job is found it is unstable and menial. The few exceptions to this are Jink’s father (who has worked in the same place for 30 years) and mother, Frankie’s mother, Boo-Boo’s mother, and Stoney’s mother (who has moved "up the ladder" to the position of supervisor). All of the Hangers suffer from a lack of self-esteem although they would deny this. Most of these boys are high school dropouts and are uninterested in pursuing education because they see no value in it--for good reason: Of the few whose parents have graduated high school, none have ever reached a high enough level of success to move away from the projects, and many are unemployed much of the time. Most people they know cannot find a job or, when one is found, it barely pays minimum wage.
These boys hold a fierce loyalty to their group; one will not consider bettering himself and leaving the others behind. This may or may not make much difference in the outcomes experienced by the boys, for they realistically see that, in the world of work as elsewhere in their poverty-stricken environments, there’s not much way to "make it," either with or without education--and they know the stark reality of this from first-hand experience. The few peers they know who persisted and graduated from high school have either found themselves unemployed or in menial jobs paying not much beyond bare subsistence levels. The Hallway Hangers believe that school performance is "of only tangential importance in securing a job." (p. 114) "Their unwillingness to partake of the education system stems from an assessment of the costs and benefits of playing the game. Their view is not that schooling is incapable of propelling them up the ladder of social mobility, but that the chances are too slim to warrant the attempt." (p. 107) The Hallway Hangers realistically see that the only "opportunities" they have are dead-end jobs, and therefore dismiss school as irrelevant because the costs of attending school are too high. These costs include deferred work earnings, assention to obedience of authority which directly contradicts the degree of autonomy they have already learned, conformity to the rules of a system that has thus far let them down, investing time and energy that is normally focused on survival and attaining all-important experience in the world of work and on the street, and risking failure and further loss of self-esteem--two things already prevalent among this group. They have already seen and experienced too much failure and possess too little self-esteem to risk further damage. Therefore, the price of attendance in school far exceeds the nil chance they may have of reaping any benefit from it, and in an attempt to preserve whatever self-esteem is left and to continue to survive by grabbing whatever opportunity that may present itself, it is only logical that they shun school and all it stands for when it has not delivered what it promises.
"The notion of a career, a set of jobs that are connected to one another in a logical progression, has little relevance to [the Hallway Hangers]. They are hesitant when asked about their aspirations and expectations. ...these boys see little choice involved in getting a job....their own job experiences as well as those of family members have contributed to a deeply entrenched cynicism about their futures." (Pp. 60-61) The Hallway Hangers have faced the cold, hard reality of their situation. From experience, they know that they will be lucky to get a job, any job, and their preferences (or lack thereof) make little difference. When asked about their futures, most of the boys do not mention work in their speculations. Work, to them, is not something of which to speculate. Work is work; "boring, undifferentiated and unrewarding." (p. 61) Each boy knows that he must work to survive and help his family, and it is not something to look forward to with anticipation because there is little choice in the matter: one must work to survive and take whatever kind of work he can get in order to do this--even if that means selling drugs (a profitable and secure business for one who lives in the projects in spite of the risks involved); one of the Hallway Hangers, Chris, aspires to be a drug dealer. Only two of the boys admittedly aspire to middle class occupations. Stoney wants to own his own pizza shop. Stoney’s aspirations may be attributed to his success at finding a job and learning a marketable skill (making pizza). Though he changes jobs frequently, the marketable skill enables him to secure another job with relatively little difficulty--although the level of pay is low. Slick, the "brains" of the Hallway Hangers, aspires to be a lawyer (though he admitted this to the others only once, and the idea was received with a great deal of laughter). Slick might have accomplished his dream had he been more focused in his attempts and faced head-on the overwhelming odds stacked against him. However, like the others, he has little energy or incentive to try to accomplish this goal. To the other Hangers, Slick’s goal is foolish and unreachable; they expect to "take what they can get," and most will feel lucky to survive--without even a thought of what it may be like to actually thrive. (p. 68) This leaves little room for hopes, desires, or dreams. Survival is the driving force for these boys, and this leaves little energy to focus attention on overcoming overwhelming odds or focusing on pursuing a goal that appears unreachable anyway.
The Hallway Hangers outlook for the future may be partially attributed to the beliefs, attitudes and backgrounds of their families though one cannot overlook nor underestimate the effect and influences of the peer group, the community, and the school in their lives. The family plays a major role in the social reproduction process via socialization and influence. Small children are highly impressionable, and outlooks for the future can be instilled in them at a very early age. The length of time that a family has lived in public housing may be a major influence in the child’s perceptions: the longer the family has lived in public housing, the more hopelessness and self-defeat the child experiences. "The Hallway Hangers seem to respect the views of their parents, even though [their parents] do not play a large role in their lives." (p. 55) This can prove detrimental to these boys because most of the parents have lived in the projects for many years and have a bleak outlook for future possibilities. This can cause a great degree of uncertainty and hopelessness in impressionable young children and serve to level aspirations at an early age. In addition, the Hangers’ parents do not encourage high aspirations in their children; in fact, they appear to discourage them completely--whether this is done knowingly and intentionally or blindly and unintentionally. A prime example of this is Stoney’s mother (the most influential, authoritative, and discipline-focused of the Hanger’s parents). She has earned a GED and secretarial degree and has achieved "moderate success" in the workforce. In spite of these achievements, she neither encourages hope in her son nor urges him to succeed: "It’s not like he’s growing up in the suburbs somewhere. Sure, he could probably make it if everything went right for him, but lemme tell you, chances aren’t great. He’s got his goals, and I’m sure they’re good, realistic ones. I personally think he should’ve stayed in school. I think he fucked up by dropping out. But he didn’t think it was worth it, and what the hell, maybe it isn’t." (p. 56) Stoney’s mother feels it "inappropriate to foster high expectations in her children" because she fears that "unrealistically high goals" will only bring about "disappointment, frustration, and feelings of failure and inadequacy" for them. (p. 56) Although perhaps understandable, with this type of attitude and belief from a parent who has experienced ‘success’, albeit moderate, one can only wonder what the other boys’ parents instill in their sons. Most of the parents discourage their sons with good reason: most have experienced bitter failure themselves. Further, since most of the parents of these boys are white (all but Boo-Boo’s parents and Chris’ father who does not live with him), they see little reason why this is true except that there are no job opportunities or because of personal failure. Thus, there is little choice than to rebel against the achievement ideology for self-preservation purposes: to save their children the humiliation and pain that they have suffered, the Hangers’ parents discourage aspirations and hold extremely low expectations. Most of the boys, in turn, respond by dropping out of high school, delving in drugs, and displaying disruptive (sometimes criminal) behavior.
In sharp contrast to the Hallway Hangers, the Brothers are a predominantly black group who believe in the power of education--with good reason. Although most of these boys’ parents have also lived in the project for many years, they are black. Thus, they are disadvantaged for a ‘good’ reason: racial discrimination in the division of labor and elsewhere. Although being black might have been considered a distinct disadvantage in the world of work in the past, affirmative action had been born and promised opportunities previously inconceivable. Affirmative action gives them a perceived edge in the world of work that had not existed for their parents, and this is enough to provide the incentive to aspire to middle class occupations. Most of these boys expect to graduate high school and earn college degrees. Most hold high expectations for their futures and strongly believe in the possibility of "making it." It is common knowledge among the Brothers that it is up to them to achieve what was impossible for their parents--success in every sense of the word. Thus, the Brothers are freer to pursue upward mobility because they have an "excuse" for being in public housing and for their parents’ inabilities to secure meaningful employment.
Unlike the Hangers, the Brothers are more at peace with the dominant culture’s expectations; they "strive to fulfill socially approved roles." (p. 42) This is evident in the Brothers regular attendance in high school and the fact that none of them smoke, drink or use drugs. None have ever been arrested. All tend to accept authority and society’s values as well as the achievement ideology. Each of the Brothers and their parents believes that affirmative action (and education) will be their panacea, and, because of affirmative action, things will be completely different for them than it was for their parents. They all believe that they are on an upward trajectory and "the sky’s the limit".
The Brothers’ parents exercise a great deal of control and authority over them. They have a curfew and behavior standards that they must obey or be punished--sometimes severely. Their parents supply them with guidelines and strongly encourage career goals and ambitions. Most of the Brothers aspire to achieve a college education, and each parent expects his/her son to maintain a certain standard at school, both in grades and behavior. James’ father pushes him to go to college (which he does). Both of his parents want him to become a lawyer (which James does not--but, importantly, this is a middle class goal that his parents encourage him to seek). Mokey’s mother urges him to pursue a career with a successful future and to aim as high as possible in his goals. The Brothers’ parents reinforce goals and high aspirations in their sons and tolerate no less; in turn, each Brother aspires to a middle class career. Each Brother declares that he expects to have a good, steady job in the future. Although a few are uncertain of their specific plans, none are hesitant in the least to discuss aspirations. All have an idea of their occupational goals and readily name them.
In a follow-up by MacLeod, neither of the groups has truly made it.17 Several of the Hangers are, as they had predicted, in jail. Others are struggling to find work or are working in menial, low-paying, unstable jobs. When asked, many declare that, had they to do it over, they would have tried harder in school. Would this have helped? Of the Brothers, most have graduated high school and are working, though in order to make it they have to work several jobs. Mostly, their jobs are minimum wage or a little above; all are hourly wage jobs. Only one Brother has completed a two-year college degree, although several still feel an urgency to attain a college degree in order to escape the jobs in which they find themselves or to be able to work just one job instead of several. Overall, it might be argued that the Brothers are slightly better off than the Hallway Hangers--most are working, they are not in jail, and overall they make more money than the Hangers--although it takes several jobs to accomplish this. Still, not one of the boys in either group holds a middle class position nor receives a middle class salary. Not one of the young men has moved very far from where he began: most still reside in Clarendon Heights or have moved to another project or some community of equivalent status.
Evidence shows that education is important to social mobility via more lucrative employment. As Wagenaar (1987) notes, completion of high school increases one’s interest in pursuing higher education, while dropping out of high school results in restricted occupational opportunities and increases early family responsibilities. A high school diploma is reportedly the minimum requirement for entry into the world of work, especially when considering high unemployment rates: during inflationary periods of high unemployment, those who have a high school education fare better in the job market than high school dropouts (Wagenaar, 1987). As education level increases, normally economic level increases, albeit disproportionately among the lower-, middle-, upper- classes as already noted. However, there is a gap in the amount of education that minorities and those of lower SES receive versus those of higher origins (Jencks, 1972), and the poor are likely to drop out of high school (Wagenaar, 1987 and others). Few lower class members go on to college even after achieving a high school diploma (Bowles and Gintis, 1976; Sewell and Shah, 1977; US Department of Education; among others), and of those who attend college, few graduate.18
Implications
Colclough and Beck’s research provides overwhelming evidence that social reproduction is alive and strong in American society, and the institution of education apparently plays an important role in the reproduction process--primarily through curriculum tracking. The majority of lower class members in their study did not experience a great degree of upward mobility although there were some subjects of manual origins who did move ‘up’ into the mental class. Thus, although their evidence acknowledges that social reproduction is prevalent, it also points out that there is some degree of social mobility. Still, upon considering the evidence of Bowles (1977), Bowles and Gintis (1976), and others, we find that education is unequal in terms of what is offered to whom and, further, that most lower class members do not attend college.19 Reproduction is assisted, and most often assured, within the system of education largely due to inequalities that ‘lower class’ citizens encounter. Yet, as Mickelson and Smith (1995) point out, "For the playing field to be level, many believe education is crucial, giving individuals the wherewithal to compete in the allegedly meritocratic system. Thus, equality of opportunity hinges on equality of educational opportunity." (p. 290) Sadly, however this is rarely the case according to Mickelson and Smith and many others: "Educational opportunity in the United States remains highly unequal for people of different race, ethnic, and class backgrounds." (Mickleson and Smith, 1995, p. 296)
The literature contains a wealth of information to suggest why one does or does not complete high school. As a result, much is understood about barriers to education. Given what we know from the literature about the many mechanisms available to weed out the "undeserving" poor in early and higher education and given that most lower class members do not pursue higher education, what common threads can be found linking the successes of those who do attempt to overcome the barriers and persist in the face of adversity?
Common Threads Among Pursuers
Characteristics of success are not often attributed as much importance as barriers and inequalities. However, there are some common characteristics and factors of success that may be found in the literature. Of those who graduate high school, it is noted that these achievers: usually receive higher grades than those who drop out, are more involved in extracurricular school activities, have friends who have high aspirations and intentions of staying in school and graduating, have higher verbal abilities, have more parental involvement and monitoring with regard to school, have strong family support for education, experience higher parental aspirations, have an internal locus of control, attend schools with lower dropout rates, have higher self-esteem and self-efficacy, come from higher SES origins, and display less alienation than dropout (usually lower SES) counterparts (gleaned from: Jencks, et al., 1972; Katz, 1977; Rubin, 1976; Bowles and Gintis, 1976; Bowles, 1977; and Wagenaar, 1987). However, there is no information on whether those who exhibit these characteristics are more likely to achieve success in college.
Thompson (1993) notes factors of success of the college women in her study: Of 103 lower SES graduate women, Thompson investigates the successes of women who had been receiving welfare. These women were part of a government program exploring ways in which those on welfare can help themselves. Thompson reports that "42.7 percent of the respondents received bachelor’s degrees, 57.3 percent completed associate degrees, and almost 12 percent had enrolled in graduate studies." (p. 435) In addition, 91.2 percent of the graduates in Thompson’s study reported that they had been employed since graduation. (p. 436) Thompson contends that the primary factors in these successes are "perseverance, desire to get a job, and receipt of financial aid." (p. 425)
A different type of study was undertaken by Higginbotham and Weber (1995). Higginbotham and Weber (1995) used data from a study of full-time employed middle class women in the Memphis metropolitan area. Their research was designed to explore the processes of upward social mobility for black and white women. This was done by examining the differences between women professionals, managers, and administrators who are from working- versus middle class backgrounds. The following is a summary of Higginbotham and Weber’s (1995) findings.
According to Higginbotham and Weber, social class is distinct from social status. Classes represent "bounded categories of the population, groups set in a relation of opposition to one another by their roles in the capitalist system. The middle class, or professional-managerial class, is set off from the working-class by the power and control it exerts over workers in three realms: economic (power through ownership), political (power through direct supervisory authority), and ideological (power to plan and organize work; Poulantzas 1974; Vanneman and Cannon 1987)." (p. 135) In contrast, education, prestige, and income represent social statuses which were defined as "hierarchically structured relative rankings along a ladder of economic success and social prestige." (p. 135) Higginbotham and Weber suggest that social relations of domination and subordination do not establish positions along these dimensions; they are established as "rankings on scales representing resources and desirability." (p. 136)
The authors were most interested in the process of upward social class mobility. They contend that, "Lacking inherited wealth or other resources, those working-class people who attain middle class standing do so primarily by obtaining a college education and entering a professional, managerial, or administrative occupation." (p. 136) Thus, they carefully examine the process of educational attainment as a necessary part of the mobility process for most working class people, not as evidence of middle class standing. Higginbotham and Weber define subjects as middle class by virtue of their employment in either a professional, managerial, or administrative occupation. Upwardly mobile women are defined as "those [subjects] raised in families where neither parent was employed as a professional, manager, or administrator." (p. 136)
Higginbotham and Weber suggest that "four questions assess the expectations and support among family members for the educational attainment of the subjects." (p. 136) First, subjects were asked if they recall their father or mother as stressing that they attain an education. One hundred ninety out of two hundred subjects replied yes. However, only 86 percent of the white working class women vs. 98 percent of all others answered yes. Higginbotham and Weber note that this response foreshadowed a pattern whereby white working class women received the least amount of support and/or encouragement for educational and career attainment. Next, subjects were asked how far their father/mother expected them to go in school. Seventy percent of both white and black working class fathers expected their daughters to attend college compared to 94 percent of the black middle class and 88 percent of the white middle class fathers. Mother’s expectations were somewhat different: 88 to 92 percent of each group’s mothers expected their daughters to get a college education except for the white working class women; only 66 percent of their mothers expected them to attain a college education. Only among the working class did fathers and mothers expect less than a college education from their daughters. Subjects were then asked whom they thought provided emotional support for them to make the transition from high school to college. Eighty-six percent of black middle class vs. 70 percent of white middle class, 64 percent of black working class, and only 56 percent of white working class noted family as providing emotional support for the transition. The fourth and final question in this area that subjects were asked was who paid their college tuition and fees. Higginbotham and Weber found clear class differences in financial support for college: approximately 90 percent of the middle class respondents, 56 percent of black working class women, and 62 percent of the white working class women were financially supported by their families. Just where those who were not supported by their families got financial support while they were in college was not specified.
The next set of questions Higginbotham and Weber asked was to explore family expectations for occupations or careers. When the subjects were asked if they recalled their father or mother stressing that they should have an occupation or career to succeed in life, racial differences appeared. Ninety-four percent of all black respondents compared with 70 percent of white middle class and 56 percent of the white working class respondents said they were encouraged to pursue education for occupational success. When Higginbotham and Weber changed the question slightly and asked who, if anyone, had encouraged the subject to think about a career, family encouragement was lower and differences were not significant, but similar patterns emerged: 60 percent of the black middle class, 56 percent of the black working class, 52 percent of the white middle class, and only 40 percent of the white working class respondents were encouraged to pursue a career by their parents. Further, when working class white women seek mobility through their own efforts, they face conflicts within their families: according to Higginbotham and Weber, when the young women develop professional career goals, the same parents who encouraged their daughters to attain an education become ambivalent. Black families are more likely than white families to encourage their daughters toward a career, but, like the white families, they frequently steer them toward "highly visible traditionally female occupations" such as nursing or teaching. (p. 139) Higginbotham and Weber also note that working class women are encouraged to marry, but they are encouraged to seek an education in order to contribute to their husbands’ incomes and/or as a "backup" in case the marriage ends in divorce or the death of a spouse. (p. 139) When the respondents were asked specifically if they recall their mother or father emphasizing marriage as their primary life goal, the majority of respondents said no, but black and white parents viewed this differently. Only 6 percent of the middle class and 4 percent of the working class black parents stressed marriage as the primary goal, but 18 percent of middle class and 22 percent of working class white parents did.
The final area in which Higginbotham and Weber queried subjects was the subjective sense of debt to kin and friends. Subjects were asked if they generally felt they owe a lot for the help that family and relatives gave them when going through college. White women respondents were confused by the question and asked what it meant, but both working- and middle class black women responded immediately that they were obligated to friends and family for the support they had received. Black working- and middle class women responded yes 86 and 74 percent of the time, respectively, while white working- and middle class women responded yes 46 and 68 percent of the time, respectively.
Higginbotham and Weber conclude that, although education was stressed in virtually all of the families of their respondents, the families differed in how education was viewed and how much was desired. Furthermore, upwardly mobile women of both races share obstacles to attainment. Race and gender is said to shape the mobility process for both black and white women. Further, more mobile women had parents who never expected them to achieve a college education, and they received less emotional and financial support for their college education from their families than the middle class women in the study. Higginbotham and Weber contend that upward mobility is a process that requires sustained effort and emotional, cognitive, and financial support. Moreover, they contend that their data are suggestive of a mobility process that is motivated by a desire for personal and collective gain and is shaped by interpersonal commitments to family, partners and children, community, and the race. Further, while social mobility involves competition, it also involves cooperation, community support, and personal obligations. Higginbotham and Weber suggest that further research be performed to more fully explore this image of mobility and to examine the relevance of these issues for white male mobility as well.
Discussion
"Any child can grow up to be president. So maintains the dominant ideology in the United States. This perspective characterizes American society as an open one in which barriers to success are mainly personal rather than social. In this meritocratic view, education ensures equality of opportunity for all individuals, and economic inequalities result from differences in natural qualities and in one’s motivation and will to work. Success is based on achievement rather than ascription. Individuals do not inherit their social status--they attain it on their own. Because school mitigates gender, class, and racial barriers to success, the ladder of social mobility is there for all to climb. ...The American Dream is held out as a prospect for anyone with the drive to achieve it" (MacLeod, 1987, p. 1).
MacLeod’s study confirms that the American meritocratic ideology is dangerously faulty and causes many lower class members to suffer without understanding why. Other research supports this finding. Social reproduction theory identifies many of the barriers to social mobility--barriers that constrain working- and lower class individuals’ efforts to break into the upper reaches of the class structure. As MacLeod aptly notes: "Put simply, reproduction theory attempts to show how and why the United States can be depicted more accurately as the place where ‘the rich get richer’ and ‘the poor stay poor’ than ‘the land of opportunity.’ " Colclough and Beck’s (1986) study confirms that social reproduction exists and that the reproduction process is assisted by the American institution of education. Education plays a tremendous role in the reproduction of social class: as noted by Bowles and Gintis (1976), education is a stratified system whereby even those within the same schools and curriculum tracks often receive differing qualities of education. Many lower class members (from 25-33 percent) drop out of high school before ever achieving a diploma. Of those who achieve a diploma, Bowles and Gintis (1976); Jencks, 1972; Sewell and Shah (1977), and others point out that few attempt to undertake the college journey . Minorities and those of low SES often receive lesser quality educations and fewer years of schooling than do those of dominant origins--although education’s importance constantly increases in the division of labor.
Many mechanisms are noted in the literature as contributing to a higher incidence of dropout behavior: The poor often receive lesser quality educations and more often end up in unsatisfactory curriculum tracks. Home environments of the poor include fewer educational and other resources, and many underclass students experience a lack of parental monitoring. Low self-esteem/self-efficacy enhances the propensity to drop out of high school. The fact that many underclass parents have lesser education appears to affect the amount of education their children receive. In addition, poor grades and a dislike of the oppressive authoritarian school environment contribute in prompting students to drop out of school. Even the region of the country in which one lives reportedly affects the decision to quit school. Alienation incites dropout phenomenon. Those who drop out are reported, unsurprisingly, to have external loci of control. Sexton (cited in Wagenaar, 1987) found that the overall dropout rate of a school appears to affect individual dropout rates. School size, climate, and control structure are all factors influencing one’s success in education. Although some researchers contribute working class members’ lack of educational success to lesser ability, differing values, and lower IQ, this has been negated by other research although those of higher ability and IQ are noted as being more apt to pursue higher education. Finally, the meritocratic/capitalist system in America may be viewed as a major barrier to lower class pursuit of education: education has a responsibility to perpetuate capitalist relations in a capitalist system.
We can but assume the reality and accuracy of social reproduction in light of supportive evidence and rates of social reproduction found in the literature. Sadly, most working class members wind up in much the same low-paying, menial trades as their predecessors. It appears that many buy into the American meritocratic ideology as displayed in their dedication to working hard and attempting to progress through the ranks in their chosen occupations by such merit.20 Many working class members are inveterate in the belief that ambition and putting in years of hard work pays off in terms of pay raises, advancements, recognition--in a word, success. Many are highly motivated and work very hard to survive. However, most working class people who deserve to progress up the ladder of success and have met what they understand to be the prerequisites more often wind up stagnant at the bottom of the ladder instead. Further, for the vast majority of indigent, poverty often entails pursuit of any kind of job--regardless of the prestige associated with a job, its difficulty level, or the level of pay proffered. Thus, most often working class members find themselves among the working poor, in spite of their efforts to succeed, instead of achieving the success and lucrative jobs alluded to by society as rewards for hard work. Most never experience permanent upward mobility, but due to the meritocratic ideology that is so widely accepted and emblazoned in the social collective unconscious of Americans, these people cannot understand why success continually escapes them though they work so hard to achieve it and are so devoted to that goal. What is even worse is that they blame themselves for this failure instead of placing the blame where it rightfully belongs--on a capitalist system and society that makes it so. Thus the injustice continues, unchallenged and unchanged.
Most lucrative jobs today require an education beyond high school because employers have raised the educational requirements, not necessarily because of the skills required for a particular job, but more often because employers desire to recruit workers with similar values to their own. Yet many students who deserve to progress by merit are often funneled into nonacademic tracks and never consider pursuing higher education: almost one-half (47.6 percent) of working class members with high ability and IQ never see the inside of a college, and only 20.1 percent of those who attend college achieve degrees. It appears that many working class people fail to understand that college is the widely accepted prerequisite to lucrative positions, positions which might very well assist them in achieving upward mobility, for less than 11 percent of all those with high ability but low SES attain degrees.21
It has been noted that the poor often receive lesser quality educations and more often end up in vocational tracks. Colclough and Beck (1986) and Vanfossen et al. (1989) show that tracking serves as a great eliminator in the race for college (and thus more lucrative positions in the division of labor). Along with tracking and lower quality education, other mechanisms serve to weed out the "undeserving." The adverse effects found in the poverty environment is one example of such mechanisms. For example, the leveling of aspirations noted by MacLeod (1987), which serves to dissuade children of lower origins from having an interest in education, is prominent in poor communities. Another adverse effect of having lower origins is the home environments of the poor: those of upper-class origins are far more conducive to the pursuit of learning as Jencks et al. (1972) and others have noted. Lack of parental monitoring (because parents often are too busy working in order to survive) is yet another downfall of the lower class member’s home environment and is conducive to the dropout phenomenon as noted by Wagenaar (1987). Low self-esteem/self-efficacy, often a product of lower SES, is also noted as a mechanism insuring the non-pursuit of education. That many working class parents have lesser years of education appears to affect the amount of education their children receive; the fewer years a parent spends in school, the fewer his/her child will likely spend.
Poor grades and a dislike of the oppressive authoritarian school environment contribute in prompting students to drop out of school. Even the region of the country in which one lives is said to affect the decision to quit school. For instance, whites in the South are more likely to give up the race for educational achievement than are their black counterparts. Alienation, commonly found among the poor, dissuades students from pursuing education. Those who drop out are also reported, unsurprisingly, to have external loci of control. This makes excellent sense, for if one feels that (s)he has no means to effect change in her/his life, there is no reason to pursue more years of education. Sexton (cited in Wagenaar, 1987) found that the overall dropout rate of a school appears to affect individual dropout rates, and poorer school districts notably have higher dropout rates. This, in effect, begets more dropouts...and the process continues. The size, climate, and control structure of a school are all factors influencing one’s pursuit of education by way of dropout probability, and overcrowded, unruly, and overbearingly authoritative schools are typical in poorer districts. Although some researchers have contributed working class members’ lack of educational success with lesser abilities, differing values, and lower IQs, this has been negated by research showing that many who drop out of high school in fact have higher abilities and IQs than, and similar values as, their graduate counterparts.
Finally, the meritocratic/capitalist system in America may be viewed as a major barrier to lower class pursuit of education. Because of the structure of the capitalist system and its need for a continuous supply of laborers (noncapitalists, or proletariat), education has a responsibility to perpetuate capitalist relations in spite of whether or not one merits an opportunity to move upward, say Bowles and Gintis (1976).
In light of the many barriers and problems one of lower origins must face in the pursuit of upward mobility via education, it is little wonder that many do not attempt the trek. Still, some lower class members do attempt to defy the odds. Some realize success as noted by Colclough and Beck (1986), Thompson (1993), and Higginbotham and Weber (1995). As noted, there are statistics which show the total number of those in the lower SES quartile who attend two-year and four-year colleges and the percentage of the total population (not specifically underclass members) who pursue/achieve advanced degrees. Much is known about the difficulties that underclass members face in their pursuit of education, but sociological studies on common factors of those who succeed in higher education appears lacking in comparison with the amount of information we have on barriers. This is an area by which the literature could benefit from empirical research. Consequently, it is to this area which the subsequent research will be addressed.
Next Section (Research Proposal)