'The Book' - Blog 19

Chapter 5 continued...

The authors describe the correspondence principle. The education system helps integrate youth into the economic system, through a structural correspondence between its social relations and those of production. Specifically, the social relationships of education - the relationships between administrators and teachers, teachers and students, students and students, and students and their work - which replicate the hierarchical division of labour.

As an example the authors comment that blacks and minorities are concentrated in schools whose coercive authority structures and minimal possibilities for advancement mirrors the characteristics of inferior job situations; predominately working class schools tend to emphasize behavior control and rule following; white schools in well to do suburbs imply relatively open systems, which favor greater student participation and a value system stressing internalized standards of control. The authors go onto to look at the idea that students with parents that are located with-in the upper levels of the hierarchy of management tend to favor qualities such as creativity and confidence vs. students with parents in the lower levels tend to favor qualities such as rule following and stricter education methods.

I do not think that there is such a distinct line that the authors are drawing here, in regards to the way in which schools are set up when discussing class distinctions. This may be due to the fact that I was raised in a well to do suburb in the south of Calgary. I feel that I was raised in an era where equality was a main focus. I think that today parents who are not that well off tend to instill values that will help their children get ahead and to not accept their station in life. Although I did not know many children who were not well off and this is an assumption on my part.

I can identify with what the authors are saying as to the possible segregation of classes with-in schools, as there as only one black child in my elementary school. Yet as I continued along with my education through to post secondary this was no longer as evident because there was a larger portion of different races. In colleges today, there is a mix of cultures and classes, this may be due to the fact that there is government support and the fact that it is now illegal to discriminate against minorities. As per our class discussion on Tuesday November 17th, we do not subscribe to such a rigid class structure as the British do / did. We are not destined at age 7 to a school path. Yet, ones economic back ground does have a connection still even today. For example my husband was accepted into law schools in Chicago and Florida. He could not attend these schools due to the fees.

Although come to think of it, most of the neighborhoods in Calgary, that are well off seem to be predominate white. I did go to predominate white schools, I wonder if neighbourhoods that are well off that may not have as many minorities recieve more funding and therefore have a higher level / quality of education?

Sometimes I think the authors link this inequality of income too much with inequality of class based on race, gender or some other external characteristic. This is evident when they link minorities going to the 'rule following school' while well off whites go to the 'open systems schools'. I believe though that what they are saying is independent of any of these external class distinctions. So while these different types of schools still exist with these different teaching methods preparing them for a certain role in capitalist society, there is no longer this tentative link to race or gender or an external characteristic.....the bottom line is that the capitalist system needs workers to occupy certain roles and they don't care what race, etc you are. It would be naive to think that the equality of external characteristics (race and gender) would solve the issue of inequality which the capitalist system produces.