Education, Meritocracy, and Employability Issues in the United Kingdom - Essay Example

Education, Meritocracy and Employability Issues in the United Kingdom Education, Meritocracy and Employability Issues in the United Kingdom Introduction Of all the various education Acts in the United Kingdom, the 1870 Education Act receives most of the attention. It is regarded as the first piece of legislation to address with specificity the provision of Education in Britain. However, there is a series of other Acts which came after the 1879 Act. In 1876, there was the Royal Commission of the Factory Acts which made school attendance compulsory. The primary objective of the Act was to cease child labour. The success of the United Kingdom’s present free education is as a result of the 1893 which brought fees payment to a halt. Parents are charged with the responsibility of ensuring their children (between the age of 3 and 4) get an absolutely free education for a duration of 15 hours weekly for a period of about 9 ½ months (38 weeks). This (free education) was geared towards the creation of a meritocratic society in the United Kingdom by giving all individuals an equal chance to attain any employment goals of their choice. However, this statement turns out to be ironic since meritocracy tends to betray the society’s expectations; it does them a disservice instead of serving them (Tannock & Brown, 2009). The issue of the provision of free and compulsory education through the implementation of the various Acts as seen in the introductory section of this article, is what Weber, in his Theory of Social Class refers to as ‘communal action’. This (communal action), as according to Weber, is based of the issues regarding to a shared conviction/belief of connection/affiliation. This in other words means that individuals in a given place, despite their differences for instance in social classes, they will still have a feeling that in one way or the other, they have something in common. For anyone trying to create a relationship among free education, meritocracy and employability of individuals in the United Kingdom, he/she has to bear in mind that there are a number of deceitful individuals or gilded theories seeking to explain the same. The functionalist theory, which is also referred to as the functionalism theory, is one such theory which can be considered as gilded in its attempt to create the relationship amongst the three (Free education, meritocracy and employability). For instance, according to this theory, since the society does not know you in terms of your ability and talents, there is need for one to be judged against the set standards, for example, individuals seating as exam so as to assess the abilities of learners for the purposes of them being marched with “relevant jobs”. As a way of unveiling functionalists and other groups of individuals with this perspective, the Marxists attempt to help the society of the United Kingdom in the creation of a practical relationship regarding the three issues. They bitterly differ with the functionalists, making the society aware of the hidden agenda of such groups of individuals. They point out that the meritocratic system of education, as it is so called, instead of championing for the concerns of the society in a sincere way, it instead promotes social inequalities. The Marxists go further to disclose the pretence depicted by social meritocracy in the United Kingdom, “It does this by pretending to give everyone an equal chance but the reality is that those from middle class backgrounds do better at school than those from working class backgrounds”, (Watson, 2008). As the time meritocracy was on the rise in the Britain, some keen individuals in the society such as Michael Young, a British Sociologist and activist predicted the inequalities that would be perpetuated after the acceptance of this social system. In 1958, a period which was 30 years since the time of his (Young’s) predictions, escalating cases of social inequalities became evident in the United Kingdom (Young, 1958). Michael Young is not the only person who was against this way of doing things in the society. Althuser, a neo-Marxist focuses on how the society is ‘conned’ in to accepting this form of inequality. In other words, the society feels that it has been deceived as a result of certain individuals taking advantage of its ignorance. He (Althuser) disputes that education makes learners to believe in the ‘fairness’ of the capitalism system not knowing that, while in the schooling process, they (children), are being prepared for their exploitation at their respective future workplaces. Outlined below are the ways in which Bowles & Gintis, in the Marxists say this social inequality is stimulated (Lynch, 1989); i. Issuing of exams, after which those learners who are considered as hardworking are rewarded, despite the fact that the same students usually, are irked with the schooling process, ii. Through the so called hidden curriculum – under this, the learners are taught how take in orders and instructions given to them while at school, something which they will be doing in the future while at their respective work places; following orders and instructions so as not to challenge the workplace’s authority. While at school, those learners who are seen as conforming (following the orders and instructions as given) end up receiving higher rewards as compared to those who do not abide by the same, but instead, chose to things in a creative and independent way, iii. ‘Alienation’ of learners, whereby they are taught but at the end of the day, they do not see the relevance in the same. This is the same case when they finish their schooling and join the work force where the only reward is money, that is, an individual works because the salary and not because he/she is going to get something else which would be either of equal or higher benefit. The duo (Bowle and Gintis) in what is referred to as The Correspondence Principle, try to create a relationship between education/school and work. First, at school a learner is rewarded for following the rules whereas at the work, an employee conforming to the workplace rules means one will be paid. A second comparison shows that there is a hierarchical structure both at school as work. Third of the comparison list is that, as a way of trying to bear with the what the duo call boring stuff, learners work hard for better grades whereas workers work hard because of salaries/wages. Finally, at the school, a day is divided in to units (class time, break time, lunch time), just as it is the case at workplaces (working hours and resting time). The Marxists believe that such educational systems (the provision of free education in the United Kingdom), were designed to ensure that a big number of learners failed ended up as failures so as not to become salary-earners but instead, wage-earners. According to a theory developed by Davis and Moore, the process of “sifting and “sorting” of students with regard to an individual students ability and talent(s)ought to be highly discouraged. The duo argue that this method did not appreciate equality at all since it (the method) ensured that the most vital roles in the economic system of the United Kingdom were filled only by the most talented learners/people from a high social class. “Marx’s position of the ruling class was they have the power to control the working classes not with force but with ideas. These ideas justify their dominant position and conceal the true source of their power along with exploitation of the subject class.” (Lynch, 1989) This seeks to explain how those in power have become deceitful or rather devious by blindfolding their subjects. They have achieved this through the avoidance of use of physical force, but instead use rewards as a bait and also employ use of ideas to control those below them/their subjects, as Marx calls it, ‘false consciousness’. This in other words tries to depict how the rich continues to maintain his status while at the same time, trying all he can within his power to ensure the one below him/her remains there; One of the explanations put forth to justify the inexistence of equality in the meritocratic system is that the efficacy of the education system ought to be assessed with respect to how much of both social and occupational mobility it can generate. There is dire need for school to ensure that the students are able to hit both their educational and occupational targets irrespective of their individual backgrounds. This in an inevitable step to take incase efforts to promote and foster meritocracy and equality respectively are expected to bear fruits. In other words, the focus ought to be shifted from just promoting equality and the fostering of meritocracy and instead be shifted towards the reconciliation of the two (Watson, 2008) Despite the free provision of education for all, responsibility allocation in terms of ones ability and talent, sort of draws boundaries resulting in the creation of various social groups/classes.For instance, individuals found in a given work place may be characterized by similar qualities such as level of education, the types of talents they posses among other factors that can be associated with persons found in a given work place.The resulting of these social distinctionswhereby some persons will be viewed/view themselves as inferior whereas other will fill superior. This clearly comes out in an interview which was conducted at Teach First.All the individuals who were interviewed, as a way of trying to shield their social class (majority of who were middle class individuals)to those conducting the interview, they used the terms such as “people like us” and “people unlike us” (Lynch, 1989). Conclusion Meritocracy, as considered by many, is a hazy topic to present before a given audience but the truth remains; it is such an appalling idea that an individual may not believe in but still claim that he/she does. The present escalating cases of social inequalities, for instance the wide and still widening gap among United Kingdom’s employees is enough evidence of the injustices meritocracy has done, is doing and will continue doing unless something is done to mitigate/curb the same. With regard to the association created by Bowles and Gintus, individuals, both still learning and working, they ought to know whatever they are doing entails and not just to blindly go by the orders and instructions are outlined to them by their respective institutions. As a justification of the disservice the society is receiving from meritocracy, as it had been mentioned earlier, both rewarding of learners and remuneration of employees is not based on one’s ability but instead, on one’s social class/background. Those who are rewarded for having performed exemplary at school are the same individuals who are given first priority when it comes to employment. They are given top posts, becoming part of the ruling class whereas the rest end up in both tedious and low paying jobs (working class). The ruling class possesses all the power to manipulate the working class the way they (ruling class) deem fit. At the same time, such high-ranking individuals, who are viewed as the capital owners (bosses or ruling-class) tend to exploit the working class or the employees, something which results in conflict between the two social classes popularly referred to as social-class conflict. References Brown, P., &Tannock, S. (2009). Education, meritocracy and the global war for talent. Journal of Education Policy, 24(4), 377-392. Kathleen Lynch. (1989). The Hidden Curriculum: Reproduction in Education, a Reappraisal. Psychology Press Grint, K (2005) Chapter 7. Race, ethnicity and labour markets: recruitment and the politics of social exclusion. The Sociology of Work .Third Edition. Cambridge, Polity Macionis, J. And K. Plummer (2008) Chapter 10. Class, Poverty and Welfare. Pp. 298-325 in Sociology, A Global Introduction 4th Edition. Pearson Education Limited, Essex, England. Macionis, J. And K. Plummer (2008) Chapter 15. Economies, Work and Consumption. Pp. 461- 501 in Sociology, A Global Introduction 4th Edition. Pearson Education Limited, Essex, England. Macionis, J. And K. Plummer (2008) Chapter 8. Social divisions and social stratification. Pp. 229-256 in Sociology, A Global Introduction 4th Edition. Pearson Education Limited, Essex, England. Smart, S., Hutchings, M., Maylor, U., Mendick, H., &Menter, I. (2009). Processes of middle‐ class reproduction in a graduate employment scheme. Journal of Education and Work, 22(1), 35-53. Watson, T. (2008) Chapter 6. Occupations, inequalities and varieties of work. Pp. 167-219 in Sociology, Work and Industry. Routledge, London and New York. Watson, T. (2008) Chapter 7. Work experiences, identities and meanings. Pp. 226-274 in Sociology, Work and Industry. Routledge, London and New York. Young, M. D. (1958). The rise of the meritocracy. Transaction Publishers. Read More