The ‘Third Wave’: Education and the ideology of parentocracy

(2006) - Phillip Brown

Journal: British Journal of Sociology of Education
Link::
DOI:: 10.1080/0142569900110105
Links::
Tags:: #paper #SocialHistory #Attainment #Education
Cite Key:: [@Brown2006]

Abstract

In this paper it will be argued that we are entering a 'third wave' in the socio-historical development of British education and that similar trends are also evident in the USA, Australia and New Zealand. The 'first wave' can be characterised by the rise of mass schooling for the working classes in the late nineteenth century. The 'secondwave' involved a shift from the provision of education based upon what Dewey called the "feudal dogma of socialpredestination" to one organised on the basis of individual merit and achievement. What is distinct about the 'third wave' is the move towards a system wherebythe education a child receivesmust conform to the wealth and wishes of parents rather than the abilities and efforts of pupils. In other words, we have witnessed a shift away from the 'ideology of meritocracy' to what I will call the 'ideology ofparentocracy'. This paper will consider the evidence to support this conclusion and examine its sociological significance.

Notes

“The 'first wave' can be characterised by the rise of mass schooling for the working classes in the late nineteenth century. The 'secondwave' involved a shift from the provision of education based upon what Dewey called the "feudal dogma of socialpredestination" to one organised on the basis of individual merit and achievement. What is distinct about the 'third wave' is the move towards a system wherebythe education a child receivesmust conform to the wealth and wishes of parents rather than the abilities and efforts of pupils.” (Brown, 2006, p. 65)

“To date, the 'third wave' has been characterised by the rise of the educational parentocracy, where a child's education is increasingly dependent upon the wealth and wishes of parents, rather than the abilityand efforts of pupils. However, it does not preclude the possibility of further educational expansion.” (Brown, 2006, p. 66)

“It was intended to confirm rather than transcend existing social divisions (Hurt, 1981). The education a child received had to conform to his or her predetermined place in the social order. Floud & Halsey (1958) note that in such a society "education serves primarily a differentiating function, maintaining the styles of life of different strata and the supply of appropriately socialised recruits to them" (p. 177).” (Brown, 2006, p. 67)

“Elementary education was largely denned in terms of instruction to meet the minimum requirements perceived to be necessary in order for the labouring poor to fulfil their future roles in a changing society.” (Brown, 2006, p. 68)

“Secondary education, which remained a preserve of the middle classes until well into the twentieth century, existed primarily to provide an education perceived to be suitable for a 'gentleman', and in order to ensure the reproduction of social and economic elites.” (Brown, 2006, p. 68)

“eem (1978) and Purvis (1983), among others, have also noted the importance of education for girls, which identified a woman's role with the domestic sphere regardless of social class. Therefore this typology highlights the fact that schooling during the 'first wave' was structured on the basis of ascription for one's predetermined future social, occupational and domestic roles.” (Brown, 2006, p. 69)

“The 'second wave' involved an ideological shift in organising principle, from an education determined by an accident of birth (ascription) to one based upon one's age, aptitude and ability (achievement). In a "meritocratic" system of education (Young, 1961), all must be given an equal opportunity of gaining access to jobs concomitant with their abilities. However, the meritocracy never promised equality, only that inequalities would be distributed more fairly” (Brown, 2006, p. 69)

“It also needs to be recognised that during the 'second wave', gender inequalities have declined, despite the fact that important gender divisions remain (Arnot & Weiner, 1987).” (Brown, 2006, p. 1)

“The Marxist message was that the 'meritocracy' was largely symbolic, given the structural correspondence which was assumed to exist between education and production (Bowles & Gintis, 1976).” (Brown, 2006, p. 1)

“The radical Right's account of the educational crisis (see Cox & Dyson, 1968; Cox & Boyson, 1977) has asserted that the comprehensive 'experiment' had not only failed, but was the cause of a decline in educational standards. They argued that the spirit of competition and excellence had been sacrificed in order to make the educational system conform to a socialist notion of social justice. Therefore, 'merit' and 'standards of excellence' need to be defended against those who promote mediocrity in the name of social justice (Cox & Boyson, 1977; Hillgate Group, 1986, 1987):” (Brown, 2006, p. 72)

“The working classes did not embrace the comprehensive school as the road to their liberation, and the Left held out little hope that the educational system would or could significantly improve the life chances of working-class people (Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977; Lauder & Brown, 1988).” (Brown, 2006, p. 76)