The United States is generally labeled a meritocratic society, within which achievements gained provide upward mobility to members of the society. The keys to upward mobility within such societies are only easily attainable by the upper classes. These keys include: acquiring at least some of the characteristics of the upper class, and learning the language patterns, social graces, and behavioral habits of the class to which one aspires. In a school that encourages these aspirations which are not always ideal for lower or working class students, it may not be realistic for students to keep up, or even be expected to embrace these expectations (DeMarrais and LeCompte 209).
For those of lower class status, education serves as their only real chance at leaving their status and becoming upwardly mobile within society. When students of a lower class become aware of the fact that their education will likely not lead to any higher status, education begins to loose its value. These students realize that the old adage of “work hard in school and it will pay off in the end” really is not necessarily true for them. Unless these students have the means to leave their communities in search of more promising jobs, their education will have little effect on their eventual occupational status. While students may still achieve their high school diplomas, when there are no jobs available which even require this accomplishment, what value did their education have to them? This phenomenon of increasing degree achievement accompanied by lack of appropriate employment opportunities is known as degrees inflation (DeMarrais and LeCompte 210).
Students of lower classes have a much lower probability of going to college than those of class status above them. Even though, as pointed out previously, achieving the highest level of education does not guarantee prestige, how can these individuals even have realistic hopes of upward mobility when they are far less likely to go to college than their peers based only on their class? These structured inequalities are inescapable (Murphy 1992).
Finally, issues of funding based on the class status of individuals within the school district provide inequalities in the quality of education children receive. Jonathon Kozol’s Savage Inequalities, points out the inequalities created by the financing of schools. Wealthier areas are able to provide better teachers and administrators, drawn in by bigger salaries, better facilities, and more program options than those that are given to poorer, lower class students (Feldman 2003).
Interference with Teachers and Administrators
Educators and administrators are most likely to be categorized in the upper and middle classes. Because of their class status, they may be unaware of the obstacles which their lower class students face. Because these teachers and administrators benefit from the privileges associated with their higher status, they may feel it is their obligation to maintain these ideals. Also, since education points out the inequalities of classes more easily to individuals who fall at the bottom than those who rank among the highest in society, educators and administrators may have a difficult time even relating to their lower class students (Kane and Kyyro 2001).
Because students are often grouped within schools based on their ability, students of lower classes who do not have the capital needed to achieve the highest test scores, will only have their differences reinforced by such groupings. Ability grouping often is based on perceptions made by teachers about the students, who are not assessed merely on the basis of their academic competence. Because lower class students often lack the cultural capital needed to excel in such setting, they are often initially judged by their educators as less able, a label that may often stick. Research shows that upper and middle class students are often judged to be “more clean, quiet, respective acting, and brighter,” than their lower classes peers regardless of their actual ability. Additionally, teachers and administrators, who are most frequently in the middle and upper classes, are most likely to favor the students who share their own values. Because these educators are most likely born with or have acquired their middle class standings, goals, aspirations etc., they may have difficulty interacting with students who do not have these traits in common with them (DeMarrais and LeCompte 215-216).
Also, research suggests that educators choose to interact more with student they view as being “high learners;” giving these students the following advantages over their lower peers: higher expectations, more praise when correct, less criticism when incorrect, more creativity in assignments, more opportunities for engagement in higher-order thinking skills, more access to innovative programs such as computer skills, and more encouragement or chances when their performance is inadequate. Because lower class students are more likely to be labeled as “low learners” their chances at receiving the same enriching education as their higher peers is diminished (DeMarrais and LeCompte 216).
