How Labelling Impacts on the Educational Journey of Students - Essay Example

Sociology of Education The general connotation of education is the enablement of knowledge acquisition, skills enhancement and ability expansion of individuals (Giddens & Sutton, 2013). Many view education as a social process, which benefits the participants socially as they pass the knowledge between various generations and amid cultures (Giddens & Sutton, 2013). Education setup is mainly a product of a schooling system which its roots from the classrooms. According to Bowles and Gintis, a connection exists between social norms acquired from the classrooms to those portrayed in the workplace (Levitus, 2012). This is because the strong, capable and hardworking workforce necessary for the development of a capitalist economy results from a school context. Socially, this aspect is paramount as education acts as a basis for admirable workforce, which is continuously accepting their roles. The hidden curriculum further explains this concept where Bowles and Gintis define this as the context of the world and the individuals’ occupancy in it. The schools impact this knowledge on their students though not part of their curriculum and this is what Bowles and Gintis argue as a crucial aspect when preparing students for the workplace experience (Levitus, 2012). In a school set up, the common slogan is that a student who performs best acquires the highest paying job. This is contrary to the reality of schools as a promotion of social in equality whereby social status dictates these opportunities and not the abilities of individuals. In this sense, individuals from higher social status receive the highest rewards in terms of jobs therefore legalizing the unfairness in social aspects of education (Levitus, 2012). Various theorists have explained what part education plays in the society either economically or politically, but all guided by the social perspective. Education institutions are bodies that represent the social structures in which various students reside. The cultural diversity and interactions between them justify the institutions as socially constructed structures. These visionaries argue differently in terms human capital, which is education as to whether it is productive or unproductive (Pandey, 1990). A section of these theorists view education as a factor in successful production and increased yields. This, therefore, justifies that high pay for the most educated because there will be high productivity (Pandey, 1990). The other category argues differently from this, as they believe that education does not play any role in ensuring increased productivity but rather increased yields result from quality labor. The third group asserts that education in a society set up can contribute both unproductively and productively. They claim that education is as important any other factor in an organization sector (Pandey, 1990). This group further asserts that education is not necessarily required for the job but to increase the standards in employee recruitment. However, they acknowledge that there are areas that require education to match up the skills required to improve results (Pandey, 1990). The argument further generates a category where seclusions occur following the kind of knowledge one has terming themselves as “Knowledge class” with this knowledge being a product of the education system. The educational institutions act as the power bank for the knowledge (Pandey, 1990). For this direction, two issues emerge to explain the knowledge class perspective, the productive and unproductive and the presence of power in knowledge. The post- industrial theory, which explains separations in labor in the social context operate uniformly and not subject to any deviations (Pandey, 1990). Theorists who take this approach explain that economic development is not subject to the money capital injection into the industry but the technological structure of the education. Conclusively, this theory appraises the role of education in the industrial society where meritocracy is paramount putting into consideration the education credentials and one’s ability and skills. This theory is a denotation of high levels of knowledge, service industries and impacting technical knowledge. The Marxists theory greatly differs with this theory basing their arguments that the theory excludes historical factors in their considerations. They argue that social labor and technological factors together form part of a complex structure (Pandey, 1990). Labeling theory Labeling is a common term as far as social aspects are concerned which refers to classifications of people we interact with in various groups or types (McNeil, Blundell & Griffiths, 2003). In an educational setup, students mingle with teachers and fellow student, which is very crucial in achieving educational excellence. Many students especially to that are at young ages spend most of their time in school, and most of the activities they carry out are mostly school related. Therefore, what they become then or even in the future mostly are, as a result, what others make believe they are (Saha & Dworkin, 2009). The interplay of students with other student and teachers lays a foundation of what they see themselves later, and this greatly affects the academic achievements. Many factors contribute to forms of interactions in various places, concepts like race, social class, gender and ethnic background. For instance, the consideration of boys and girls is different where stereotyping on boys dictates that they should be very participative and good on mathematics. Similarly, girls should be quiet and reserved according to this stereotype (Saha & Dworkin, 2009). Labeling students mostly generates negative experiences and unfairness in terms of social classes, for instance, those students that come from poor backgrounds are subject to labeling as poor performers. This affects them negatively in terms of future opportunities and their ability to achieve excellence (Saha & Dworkin, 2009). Students adopt and welcome stereotypes of their teachers depending on how many times the teacher labels them, how the students views the teachers opinions and the support that label receives from other parties (Slee, 1995). Theorists further segregate this theory into micro and macro theories to help in understanding the systems of education. “Code theory” is one of the subsets of the labeling theory, which relates the speech capabilities of students depending on the place where that student went to school. This later depicts their later interactions in the society. This theory concludes that a student from high-class backgrounds has different speech capabilities from those in middle and low class social contexts (Saha & Dworkin, 2009). This theory further asserts that due to various background that are present in school because of student diversity, teachers and the whole educational organization view various student differently (Saha & Dworkin, 2009).. These interactions of teachers and students internally consequently lead to macro level interactions. “Exchange Theory” claims that there are accolade and costs resulting from interactions. These costs and benefits are not only economical but also general health status, ability to interrelate with others and emotionally (Saha & Dworkin, 2009). Meritocracy According to Themelis (2008), the concept of meritocracy refers to possession of power whereby there are fair merits and not because of social standing or money possession. Meritocracy promotes the acquisitions of legitimate education, which in turn supports merits based on the qualifications (Themelis, 2008). In Britain especially in the post-war period, the industrialization levels raised that created a great need for the labor market. This therefore made many occupants closely relate to the education system to acquire the required experience. The rise in universities to offer the relevant skills and in return the student acquired jobs from those industries (Themelis, 2008). Young argues that meritocracy should reduce the powers and benefits of the powerful in society but instead increases the unfairness in educations. This is because only those that can afford to further their education acquire priority in the labor market (Themelis, 2008). However according to “Bell’s liberalism”, increase in meritocracy is much more beneficial than it can do harm. Meritocracy opens up opportunities for social dynamicity resulting from expansive education or human capital (Themelis, 2008). This way, there is enhanced equality in the education system because despite the background of students they can acquire equal opportunity to employment as long as they have the necessary skills (Lampert, 2012). British education system especially after the world war constituted a meritocratic framework where those students with the necessary educational skills were easily absorbed in the labor market (Themelis, 2008). This is due to the rise of many industries and despite the social status of an individual, employment offering was because of abilities and efforts of those individuals. Britain has consistently adopted this framework where they offer employment on educational merits. References Giddens, A & Sutton, P.W. (2013). Education, Sociology. Cambridge: Polity press Lampert, K. (2012). Meritocratic Education and social worthiness. Basingstok: Macmillan McNeil, P., Blundell, J.,& Griffiths, J. (2003). Socialogy as the complete companion. OCR specifications. Cheltenham: Nelson Thorne Pandey, R. (1990). The role of intellectuals in contemporary society. New Delhi: Mittal. Saha,L.J & Dworkin,A.G (2009). International handbook of Research on teacher and teaching. New York, NY: Springer Themelis, S. (2008). Meritocracy through education and Social mobility in post war Britain: a critical examination: British Journal of sociology of education. 29(5): pp 427-438. Levitas, M. (2012). Marxist Perspectives in the Sociology of Education (RLE Edu L Sociology of Education). Abingdon, Oxon: Routedge. Read More