Equal opportunity, meritocracy and education

In a meritocracy, an individual's achievements are based on their own talents and abilities rather than
on factors such as their social origins, gender or ethnicity. A meritocratic society provides equality of
opportunity so that everyone has an equal chance to achieve. Rewards (such as high incomes and
status) are distributed and occupations are allocated on the basis of ability and effort as measured by
educational achievements and examination results. Although inequality exists, it is based on innate
differences in talents or intelligence rather than on social differences in opportunity.

But do societies necessarily provide equality of educational opportunity for all children to achieve their
potential? Or do education systems favour groups such as those at the top of the class system in
unequal societies?

Functionalist accounts of meritocracy

According to Parsons, schools promote the key shared values of achievement and equal opportunity.
Education gives students the central value of individual achievement through, for instance, competitive
assessments and examinations. These examinations are based on meritocratic standards that are
applied to all students in the same way. The education system is also seen as meritocratic in allocating
individuals to their future jobs and status in society on the basis of individual merit and ability rather
than gender, ethnicity or class. Even those who do not achieve high grades in examinations or high-
status jobs nonetheless accept that the education system operates in a fair way.

In Parsons view, as societies modernised, social selection would be based on achievement rather than
on ascription. An individual's educational attainments would determine their future occupational
success. Parsons argued that, if there is fair access to opportunity it is fair to give different rewards to
people for different levels of achievement(differentiation- allowing individuals to demonstrate their
differences in objective ways). However, competition must be based on equal opportunities. If some
people are disadvantaged because of their sex, race or social class, for example- then society cannot be
sure that 'the best people will end up in the most important or impressive adult roles. Meritocratic
systems involve, therefore, inequalities of outcome. According to Parsons, equality of opportunity does
not imply equality of outcome.

Schools develop inequalities of outcome through testing and examinations in a meritocratic system.
These must be objective tests that everyone has an equal opportunity to take and pass. This is because
role allocation is a system (mechanism) through which those who are intellectually most able and
talented achieve work roles that offer the highest rewards in terms of income, power and status.

Harris (2005) suggests that for traditional functionalism, social mobility develops out of the way people
are encouraged to perform different roles, some of which are more important, skilled and difficult to
learn than others. The promise of higher levels of status, income and job satisfaction by working for
educational qualifications, therefore, represents necessary motivations and rewards. These rewards
lead to the development of social levels of importance (hierarchies)-some jobs are more important
than others and this creates functionally necessary social inequalities.
Davis and Moore (1945) saw the education system as sorting and grading students in terms of their
abilities and talents. The system rewards the most talented with academic credentials which provide
them with entry to the most functionally important occupations in society. In Davis and Moore's view,
meritocracy operates as a mechanism for allocating individuals to suitable occupations. Although social
inequalities persist in a meritocracy, people accept them as fair.

Criticisms of functionalist accounts

> Critics question whether education systems are based on equality of opportunity. For example, not all
students have access to fee-paying schools. Paterson and fannelli (2005), for example, argue that in
Scotland: "Many studies have shown education and the acquisition of educational qualifications are
important means, through which middle class families pass on their social and economic advantage to
their children. In these circumstances, education, rather than promoting greater social mobility, may in
fact reduce it.

> Others question whether schools are meritocratic. The underachievement of working-class students
and those from some minority ethnic groups results from social factors such as their lack of access to
different forms of capital rather than from lack of ability or talent

>Many sociologists see meritocracy as a myth rather than as a reality.

New Right accounts of meritocracy

Peter Saunders (1995, 1996) argues that a meritocracy allocates positions such as occupations on the
basis of effort in addition to ability. He differentiates between equality of opportunity and equality of
outcome (in which everyone ends up the same).

In his view, a meritocracy is based on equality of opportunity (for example, having the right to a free
state education) but it generates unequal outcomes (for example, in terms of the overall examination
results of females and males). In his view, social inequality is not necessarily unfair. In other words, it is
possible for a meritocratic society to be unequal but fair.

According to Saunders, many sociologists focus on class divisions, social advantage and disadvantage
rather than on intelligence or innate ability. These sociologists examine the social causes for the
differences in educational attainment and levels of social mobility between groups. In doing so, they
overlook the possibility that genetic factors might play a part in explaining these differences. Saunders
argues that intelligence and effort are the main factors that influence an individual's social class
position in British society.

Social democratic accounts of meritocracy

Social democrats support the ideal of meritocracy but argue that, in practice, social inequalities can
prevent equality of educational opportunity.

Marxist accounts of meritocracy

Marxists see notions of equality of opportunity as ideological in that they help to disguise the realities of
class exploitation and domination under capitalism. They reject the idea that schools provide equality of
opportunity. Instead, they argue that schools provide capitalist enterprises with the workforce they
need.

Bowles and Gintis view meritocracy as a myth. It is an ideology via which the education system
disguises the social and economic inequalities that are built into capitalist society. Poverty, for example,
is seen as acceptable because it results from innate individual failings.

Bowles (1976) rejects the idea that schools in the USA evolved as 'part of a pursuit of equality. Instead,
he argues that they developed 'to meet the needs of capitalist employers for a disciplined and skilled
labour force. Bowles describes class inequality in the school system in the USA as persistent and
pervasive.

Bowles and Gintis (1976, 2002), cultural reproduction is secured through the correspondence between
workplace and educational inequality Education systems play a gate keeping role in society, allowing
those with the right attitudes( orientations) through and excluding those with the 'wrong' orientation
towards work .Education is not so much a test of ability as a test of conformity. Those who play the
game progress through its various levels, while those who do not are systematically removed.

While meritocratic systems should involve contest mobility, neo-Marxists such as Bowles and Gintis
argue that modern education systems are characterised by Sponsored mobility. By this they mean that
upper- and middle class children enjoy a range of cultural advantages over their working-class peers,
such as the ability to buy high-quality, high-status private education. Their progress from school to high-
paid, high-status employment is effectively sponsored by their parents' class background.

In Bowles' view, educational inequality is rooted in the class structure of capitalist societies. At the
same time, education legitimises and reproduces the class structure. Schooling appears to be open to
all. Thus, an individual's position in capitalist society is portrayed as resulting from their talents and
efforts rather than their birth. Bowles rejects the idea that schools in the USA are moving towards
equality of opportunity. He argues that the close relationship between educational attainments and
later occupational success thus provides a meritocratic appearance to mask the mechanisms that
reproduce the class system from generation to generation.

Schooling operates on the principle of rewarding excellence. However, the upper classes are able to
define excellence in such a way that their children tend to excel, for example, in relation to examination
results. Sticking to the principle of rewarding excellence leads to unequal outcomes - for instance in
terms of unequal access to university-while at the same time maintaining the appearance of fair
treatment.

Breen (1997) argued that meritocracy occurs at the lower levels of society only. The higher social levels
are marked by social closure-they a closed to the vast majority and no real competition place within
these levels. Social closure is related to the levels of social capital- the networks and connections built
through membership of elite private schools, such as Winchester and Eton in the UK or the Lawrence
School Sanawar, in India and universities such as Oxford and Cambridge in the UK or Harvard and Yale in
the USA.

Aldridge argues that social closure does not only limit upward intra-generational social mobility, from
manual occupations to higher status professional and technical occupations, it actually causes it to
decline. To tighten entry requirements across higher status occupations means they are closed from
below. This means that it is impossible to enter these occupations without having been through a
particular educational process, from A Levels, through undergraduate and postgraduate qualifications to
professional entrance exams

Children may gain more and better educational qualifications than their grandparents, but the economic
value of these qualifications declines Occupations such as nursing that once required a relatively low
level of educational qualification (such as GCSEs) now require much higher levels (such as an
undergraduate degree)

For Marxists, therefore, the role of education is to educate most people just enough to be useful
employees and a small number more than enough to take up high powered elite working roles.

Neo-Marxists claim that the relationship between education and cultural reproduction is based on
legitimate leadership with the 'consent’ of the led. This is achieved, for example, through ruling class
control of the media. If people can be made to believe that education is meritocratic, with achievement
based on individual intelligence and hard work, then the system cannot be blamed. The individual is
responsible for their own failure.

The role of education as an institution charged with creating well-socialised, willing, future workers is
questioned by Willis's study of working-class lads' This research suggests that some students are well
aware of the limitations of education and work. They see through the system, for example, and
consciously rebel against it. The main question when evaluating this view is how far the experience of
education socialises students, into an acceptance of capitalist ideology. Where traditional Marxism casts
teachers in the role of agents of ideological Transmission and control-directly responsible for shaping
the understanding (perceptions) of students-an alternative interpretation is that many students realise
they are destined for low-status work and see little point in learning the lessons offered by the
education system

Life chances

In a meritocracy, there is equality in life chances. The term 'life chances' refers to an individual's chances
(opportunities) of obtaining those things defined as desirable and avoiding those things defined as
undesirable in their society. In Western societies, for example, life chances relate to educational
attainment, life expectancy, health, housing, wealth, income, job security and promotion prospects.
Life chances are distributed unequally between different individuals or groups. Those in higher social
classes, for example, have access to more of the things considered desirable (such as a good education
and high-status credentials) than those in other social classes.

Sociologists, politicians and policy makers see education as an important influence on life chances. In
many countries around the world, policy initiatives focus on improving the life chances of people from
less privileged backgrounds.

The consequences of educational underachievement

Educational underachievement among particular social groups such as working class boys from low-
income families or some minority ethnic groups has consequences for the Individuals and groups
concerned, and for society. The arguments put forward include the following points:

> Educational underachievement has a negative impact on economic growth if human resources are
not put to their most appropriate use.

> It results in wastage of talent if some groups' talents are not being used to the full. This may, in turn,
affect economic efficiency and reduce international competitiveness.

> The motivation and productivity of people who underachieve may be affected. In this case, it may
impact on economic growth.

> If members of some social groups underachieve, it means that inequality will be maintained over
time.

>Educational underachievement may suggest a lack of equal opportunity in society.

Some sociologists question the usefulness of the concept of underachievement (Gorard and Smith,
2004; Smith, 2003a, 2003b). They point out that there is little agreement on how to define or measure
it. For example, underachievement has been defined in terms of low or poor achievement in formal
tests or examinations, low achievement relative to that of other social groups and lower achievement
than would be expected.

New Right thinkers argue that if societies provide the same opportunities to their members through a
meritocratic schooling system, then educational success or failure results from the different choices
people make, Saunders (1996), for example, argued that social mobility is related to education in the
sense that it reflects the life choices made by different individuals and groups. In any competitive
system, there must be winners and losers. Some people will have more of the 'good things in life' than
others. Who these winners and losers turn out to be in meritocratic societies is decided (determined)
by the choices they make, not by factors such as class, gender or ethnicity. Saunders argued that middle-
class parents invest heavily in their children's education and this investment choice combined with hard
work by the children themselves, is rewarded by higher educational qualifications. This does not
guarantee that such children will be upwardly mobile, but it usually guards against downward mobility.
The New Right approach tends to be in favour of schools being privately owned rather than state
controlled. This, they argue, ensures that consumers (parents and their children) have the widest
possible choice. This idea is related to marketisation and follows from the idea that private companies
must respond to consumer demand by continually innovating and improving their service to attract and
keep customers.

This limits the chances of mobility for children from the lower levels of society whose parents cannot
afford to pay for an alternative education to that offered by the state. The very rich, for example, self-
select their children by paying for private education. Those from the middle class self-select by making
sure their children attend the schools with the best academic reputation. The power of parents to
strongly influence the educational experience of their children has been called parentocracy.

The links between education and social mobility

The issue of social mobility is high on the political agenda in many countries. Sociologists are interested
in studying social mobility as a way of examining the extent to which a society is meritocratic and how
far it offers opportunity for talent and effort to be rewarded. Social mobility is an important factor in an
individual's life chances.

Education is widely seen as a key route to social mobility- to movement between social classes in
industrialised and developing countries. Sociologists explore the role of education in promoting social
mobility. In many societies, educational attainment is a key factor in determining people's mobility
chances, their jobs and their social class.

However, what role does an individual's educational attainment play in determining their chances of
social mobility? Does education promote mobility for working-class and female students? Or does it
restrict mobility levels? Do people with higher-level educational qualifications achieve higher social class
positions?

Evidence and arguments about the links between education and social mobility

In the UK, Shepherd and Rogers (2012) carried out an analysis of Christian faith schools, which are
allowed to select students on the basis of parental faith. The results showed that these schools take a
lower proportion of working class children than their catchment area suggests they should :"England's
faith state schools are on average failing to mirror their focal communities by shunning the poorest
pupils in their area. In this respect consumer choice is only really available to those who have the money
and resources to make such choices. Where schools select their students through interviews and tests, it
is largely middle-class parents, those with the cultural capital to play the selection game successfully,
who benefit at the expense of the working class.

The evidence for ‘bright working-class children' benefiting from objective forms of selection is much
debated. While critics argue that IQ testing brings little or no benefits to working-class children,
supporters such as Saunders (1996) claimed that to see middle-class children outperforming working-
class children in objective tests and to deduce from this that the system itself was unfair and needed
changing misses the point. Middle-class children are, he argued, simply more intelligent.

Defining social mobility

The term 'social mobility' refers to movement between different strata or layers in society. In
industrialised societies, it refers to movement between social classes. Social mobility can be upward-for
example, moving from the working to the middle class-or downward. Societies that provide little
opportunity for social mobility are described as closed and those with a relatively high rate of Social
mobility are called open. In closed systems, an individual's position is largely ascribed. Often, it is fixed
at birth and there is little that people can do to change their status. In open systems, status is achieved
and the individual has some chance of changing their position. The traditional caste system in India
provides an example of a closed stratification system. Individuals automatically belonged to their
parents’ caste and, except in rare instances, spent their life in that status. In class-based systems, social
mobility is possible. Some people will be upwardly mobile and improve their position on the basis of
merit through talent, ability, ambition and hard work. In such cases, characteristics such as class of
origin, gender and ethnicity have little influence on individual’s social status.

Types of social mobility

Sociologists have identified two main types of social mobility: intragenerational and intergenerational
mobility. (Intra' refers to 'within' and 'Inter' refers to 'between'.)

1. Intragenerational mobility refers to social mobility within a single generation. It is measured by

comparing the occupational status of an individual at two or more points in time. Thus, if a person
begins their working life as an unskilled manual worker and 10 years later is employed as an accountant,
they are upwardly socially mobile in terms of intragenerational mobility.

2. Intergenerational mobility refers to social mobility between generations. It is measured by

comparing the occupational status of sons or daughters with that of their fathers (or, less frequently,
with that of their mothers). Thus, if the daughter of an unskilled manual worker becomes an accountant,
she is socially mobile in term of intergenerational mobility.

Contemporary studies of social mobility are more likely to take gender and ethnicity into account than
those carried out in the 20th century.

Sociologists distinguish between absolute and relative intergenerational mobility. Absolute mobility
refers to the total amount of social mobility in a society. Relative mobility refers to the comparative
chances of people from different class backgrounds reaching particular positions in the social structure.

Measuring social mobility

Sociologists often use occupation to measure mobility between different classes.

The Oxford Mobility Study (OMS),

widely seen as a classics tudy of social mobility, was conducted in 1972 and published in 1980
(Goldthorpe, 1980). It provides an example of quantitative research using a survey of 10 000 men in
England and Wales. The OMS is based on a seven-class scheme devised by John Goldthorpe. It produced
data on the impact of the 1944 Education Act or educational achievement and social mobility. The 1944
Act introduced a test for 11-year olds, the results of which determined the type of secondary school
they would attend.

The study found high rates of absolute mobility. There was more upward than downward mobility,
because the proportion of non-manual jobs in the Occupational structure had increased while the
proportion of manual jobs had decreased. It also found that the chances of those from working-class
backgrounds reaching a higher social class had improved during the course of the 20th century.

On the surface, these findings seem to support the claim that British society was becoming more open
and meritocratic. However, the study found that relative mobility chances varied greatly between the
classes, and the relative chances had changed little during the 20th century. Thus, 45.7 per cent of sons
with class 1 fathers (the highest social class, containing professionals and high-grade managers] ended
up in class 1. However, just 7.1 per cent of sons with class 7 fathers (the lowest social class, containing
unskilled and semi skilled manual workers) ended up in class 1.

The chances of members of all social classes attaining class 1 and 2 jobs increased over the period
studied. However, this absolute mobility largely resulted from changes in the occupational structure.
The growth of professional occupations, for example, created more room at the top. Mobility was more
due to this and less the result of increased equality of opportunity or reductions in inequalities in life
chances. The relative chances of those from different classes taking advantage of the increasing room at
the top of the class system changed little. In other words, there was no significant increase in the
openness of the British stratification system.

Problems with the Oxford Mobility Study

1. The OMS suggests that there was a relatively high rate of mobility into the top of the British class
system and that class 1 as a whole appeared fairly open. However, critics argue that the OMS ignores
the existence of small elites or, in Marxist terms, a ruling class. The OMS's class I is a relatively large
grouping, containing 10-15 per cent of the male working population. Studies that concentrate on small
elite groups within class 1 reveal a much lower degree of openness.

2. The OMS ignores women. It views the family as the unit of stratification in industrial societies. The
class position of a family was based on the Occupation of the main earner, usually a man. Feminist
sociologists criticise such approaches as having a male bias and as telling us little about the social
mobility experiences of women.

Comparative studies of education and social mobility(data)

Technical difficulties in carrying out studies of social mobility have made it difficult to compare
International rates of mobility. For example, the occupational classification schemes employed to
distinguish classes have varied from society to society and comparable sets of data have not always
been available.

In recent years, however, international comparisons of social mobility rates have become possible. One
reason for this is that a number of countries have adopted similar occupational classification schemes.

An international comparison of mobility rates in European countries was published in 2004 by Richard
Breen (discussed in Scott, 2005). This study examined how far class origins influenced educational
success and how far occupations were determined by educational qualifications. In the most
meritocratic Countries, class should have little effect on educational success, while occupational status
should be strongly influenced by qualifications. Sweden was found to be the most meritocratic of the
countries, and Britain was the least meritocratic in terms of how changeable or open the class structure
was taking both upward and downward social mobility into account.

Jo Blanden, Paul Gregg and Stephen Machin (2005) conducted research on intergenerational mobility in
eight major industrial counties (six European countries, the USA and Canada). However, they used
income rather than occupation as a measure of mobility. This allowed them to make simple comparisons
between countries and cohorts (groups of people born at different times). They found that Britain and
the USA had the lowest rates of intergenerational mobility while Norway, Denmark and Canada had
relatively high rates. They also found that the extent of intergenerational income mobility had declined
significantly in Britain over time: the cohort born in 1970 was less mobile than the cohort born in 1958.
By contrast, a marked fall in mobility was not found in the USA. They explain the decline in mobility in
Britain partly in terms of the 'increasing relationship between family income and educational
attainment between these cohorts.

Based on his review of the literature on comparative studies of mobility in Western societies, John Scott
(2005) argues that an individual's chances of upward or downward social mobility depend on their class
background significantly more than on their educational attainments. In his words, "Education does not
seem to matter very much when it comes to determining occupational success and improvements in
income... the chances of a person rising or falling in the social hierarchy depends on their class
background far more than it does on their individual educational achievement. People born in the
higher classes have much more chance of experiencing upward social mobility and avoiding
downward social mobility.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (Going for Growth, 2010) compared
earnings between fathers and sons in several developed nations. In France, Italy, the UK and the USA, a
young person from a less well-off family had relatively low chances of earning higher wages or getting a
higher level of education than their parents. By contrast, countries such as Denmark, Austria and Canada
had relatively high levels of earnings mobility across the generations.
One view is that levels of mobility are associated with public expenditure on education. For example,
lower levels of mobility tend to be found in countries with lower levels of spending on education per
person as a percentage of their gross domestic product

When making international comparisons of mobility researchers may be limited by lack of relevant
data. For instance, when measuring income mobility researchers must have access to parental income
and also children's income 20 or more years later. By contrast, data on parents' and children's social
class or occupation are relatively easy to collect. However, it is important that the international
measures of social class are comparable, to ensure that class has the same meaning across countries. It
is also difficult to ensure cross-national comparability in terms of qualification levels.

Functionalist accounts of social mobility

From a functionalist perspective, education systems in industrial societies have a key role in training the
future workforce so that it can meet the growing demand for professional, managerial and technical
workers. Recruitment to important occupations is increasingly based on merit. In this context, the role
of education becomes that of determining class position.

Functionalist accounts argue that the relationship between educational attainment, social class and
occupational destinations will grow stronger over time in response to the demands of industrial
societies' economic organisation and technology. In order to maintain technological and economic
dynamism, employers must recruit staff on the basis of the relevant knowledge and skills that
educational qualifications certify. The increasing demand for qualified staff will necessitate the
expansion of education systems along with reforms in order to increase equality of educational
opportunity. This will ensure that human resources are used as effectively as possible. In the
functionalist account, ascribed status will be replaced over time by achieved status via education. As a
result societies will become increasingly socially mobile and meritocratic. The association between class
origins and educational attainment will weaken over time and intergenerational social mobility will
increase.

Criticisms of the functionalist approach

>Critics argue that functionalism focuses on the needs and demands of society as a whole rather than
on how individual social actors make sense of these needs.

› Goldthorpe (2013) points out that there has not been a tendency in most advanced industrial societies
for the association between educational attainment and class destinations to strengthen.

Nor is there definite evidence of a general weakening trend in the association between social origins and
class destinations.
>Brown (2013) argues that many studies highlight continuing inequalities in social origins, education
and destinations linked to class, ethnicity and gender. In his view, it is necessary to address class
inequalities in opportunity and life chances in order to increase intergenerational social mobility rates.

Brown suggests that within a mass system of higher education characteristic of many countries today,
credentials become less valuable to employers as a way of screening job applicants. There is also more
emphasis now on competency-based recruitment, which combines 'the "hard currencies" (credentials,
sporting achievements, work experience, etc.), along with the "soft currencies" of personality, character
and social confidence. This benefits students from privileged backgrounds who, for example, take for
granted learning opportunities in the form of unpaid internships, extra-curricular activities (activities
outside school) and foreign travel. Brown argues that job candidates are now excluded because they
lack the personal qualities that make up employability rather than because they lack the relevant
credentials. As a result, the relationship between educational attainment and class destination will
become weaker rather than stronger.

Neoliberal approaches to social mobility

New Right or neoliberal approaches focus on giving people from disadvantaged backgrounds the chance
to compete in the market with people from more privileged backgrounds. Open competition provides
some people with the opportunity to become socially mobile.

Criticisms of neoliberal approaches

Brown (2013) argues that this approach focuses on absolute rather than relative mobility. It sees the
way to increase absolute social mobility in terms of raising the aspirations of people from disadvantaged
backgrounds and increasing the opportunities available to them. However, it fails to address the issue of
relative social mobility. In Brown's view, the neoliberal approach ignores the sociological evidence that
absolute social mobility can occur without any reduction in inequalities in life chances.

Brown argues that many families-- both working class and middle class experience social congestion
rather than intergenerational social mobility. In his view the economy does not have the capacity to
deliver enough professional occupations to meet demand. This has led to crowding in the labour
market. In industrialised countries with mass higher education, a large middle class and wide
inequalities in income, the labour market's failure to supply enough professional occupations is
particularly marked. Job applicants have to compete with each other. They try to use the education
system to 'stand out from the crowd. The tactics they use to get ahead often add to the congestion,
because so many applicants adopt the same tactics. Universities and employers respond by raising their
entry requirements or adding requirements such as work experience as well as higher education
qualifications.

Feminist approaches to Social mobility

Feminists are critical of the male bias involved in the practice of categorising women in social mobility
studies according to the class of their male partners (Acker, 1973). Many prefer an approach in which
individuals are allocated to a class according to their own job.

Quantitative studies of social mobility have tended to focus on social class rather than on gender
(Abrantes and Abrantes, 2014). However, evidence suggests that women's chances of upward social
mobility are more constrained than those of men. One reason for this relates to gendered subject
choices at school and beyond. Qualifications in Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM)
subjects are highly valued in labour markets and can lead to well-paid careers. Female students are less
likely than males to study STEM subjects at school and at university. Feminists argue that subject
choice may impact negatively on females' future career options, earnings from paid work and their
social mobility chances. Careers information and guidance provided by educational institutions or by
families might not challenge gender stereotypes surrounding subject choice. This, in turn, might limit
females’ chances of social mobility.

Many sectors of labour markets (such as architecture, engineering, nursing and childcare) are
segregated on gender lines. Male-dominated sectors (such as information technology) are often more
highly paid even when they require the same level of educational qualifications for entry. As a result,
women may have less chance of experiencing income generational mobility than men. Furthermore,
gender discrimination in the labour market (for example, in relation to recruitment and promotion) can
have a negative impact on women's social mobility chances.