Education for Mobility or Status Reproduction?
Media
Part of Education for Mobility or Status Reproduction?
- Title
- Education for Mobility or Status Reproduction?
- extracted text
-
Education for Mobility
or Status Reproduction?
KARYN LACY
Abstract
Everyone is familiar with the popular phrase, “education levels the playing field.”
However, does public schooling really provide opportunities for everyone who is
willing to work hard to succeed? This essay examines the scholarly debate that has
emerged around this long-standing maxim. At one end of the continuum, scholars
draw on the experiences of white ethnic immigrants to make the claim that education is the ticket to upward mobility for students from poor families. However,
critics point to the experiences of marginalized blacks, and increasingly, Latinos,
to reject this claim. At the other end of the continuum, scholars depart from traditional debates about racial disparities per se, shifting their focus to an understudied
disparity—the growing gap in achievement between middle-class students and poor
students. These scholars point to an important new trend in class inequality, one that
has gained momentum in recent years, namely, the rising significance of the acquisition of cultural capital as a necessary prerequisite for upward mobility. Analysis
of this trend is a promising step in the right direction for scholars concerned with
helping disadvantaged students to climb out of poverty.
INTRODUCTION
Last year, in a speech at the US Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Legislative
Summit, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan exhorted, “in America, education must be the great equalizer—the one force that overcomes differences
in race, ethnicity, and privilege … It is time that we level the playing field.”
Most Americans subscribe to the conventional wisdom that a good education is the primary means by which those at the bottom make it to the top. In
a world seemingly rigged in favor of the upper classes, education is typically
perceived as a glaring exception, a sphere where everyone, no matter their
origins, has the same opportunities to get ahead. Many believe that the school
setting provides ample opportunities for individuals from diverse groups
to compete fairly. Those who hold this view reason that high-achieving students naturally rise to the top. This standpoint has staying power because it
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.
1
2
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
is consistent with the most popular tenet of the American Dream, the belief
that everyone has a chance of becoming economically successful so long as
they are willing to work hard.
Yet, far too many racial minorities, poor people, and post-1965 immigrants
have not been brought into the fold, do not see themselves as fully integrated
into the American mainstream, in part because their experiences with the
public school system have been largely negative, severely restricting their
ability to claim their piece of the pie once adult. In terms of academic
performance, whether the measure is test scores, grades, or susceptibility
to tracking, black and Hispanic children are disadvantaged compared to
their white counterparts. Low socioeconomic status explains some of this
disparity, pointing to the need to study more closely the experiences of less
privileged students. With respect to two of the most important educational
outcomes, the transition from high school to college and college completion,
black, Hispanic, and Native American children are less likely to graduate
high school and less likely to graduate from college than either whites or
Asians (Kao & Thompson, 2003). The excerpt from Duncan’s speech makes
clear that the federal government acknowledges differences across groups
in educational attainment, realizes that this disparity is not a matter of
merit alone, and understands that differential access to a quality education
mirrors the social divide already present in the larger society. In that sense,
the difference between the government’s position on the exchange value
of education and the position of the masses is striking. The public strongly
believes in meritocracy, that academic achievement is rewarded and can be
parlayed into the good life, while the Obama Administration is convinced
that race and class discrimination potentially undermine meritocratic
achievement. From the government’s perspective, more federal intervention
is needed to ensure fair play. This essay interrogates the two overriding
assumptions driving opposing sides of the debate on the impact of public
education in American society: Does education really reduce inequality?
Alternatively, is the American educational system designed to perpetuate it?
EDUCATION AMERICAN-STYLE
Today, many Americans take public education for granted. However, before
the introduction of universal public school in the mid-nineteenth century,
formal schooling was uncommon and there was no formal federal policy
designed to regulate the curriculum, teacher credentials, or surging costs
of public education. In some states, public schools charged tuition and fees
while private schools were subsidized by the state (Rubinson, 1986). More
often than not, schooling was the province of the elite, who sent their boys to
prestigious boarding schools and their girls to “finishing” schools (Lieberson,
Education for Mobility or Status Reproduction?
3
1980). In doing so, the elite sought to instill in their sons the kind of toughness
necessary to fulfill their future roles as leaders capable of supervising subordinates. In these exclusive single-sex institutions, what mattered most for the
male children of the upper-class was not so much academic excellence (that
was perceived as effeminate), but rather grit and character, qualities schoolmasters insisted could be nurtured only through rigorous participation in
an organized sport. Endicott Peabody, the founder of the exclusive boarding
school, Groton, required all students to play football whether they wanted
to or not, whether they possessed the physical frame required to excel in the
sport or not, arguing, “I’m not sure I like boys who think too much” (Karabel,
2005, p. 30). In any case, for some time, only a small percentage of Americans
were educated in formal institutions.
Until the mid-nineteenth century, the majority of children in the United
States were not enrolled in any school. During the Colonial Era, children
learned the skills required for economic stability once adult from their
family of origin. Boys learned how to farm as they worked alongside their
fathers in the fields, while girls learned how to keep house as they helped
their mothers complete the daily tasks associated with running a household.
Because the status of low-income families was predetermined, the notion
that working-class children would rise above the status of their family of
origin was virtually inconceivable (Bowles & Gintis, 1977; Coleman, 1968).
Education for the elite alone came to an end with the rise of the Common School Movement in the 1840s led by the Commissioner of Education
in Massachusetts, Horace Mann. Concerned that the moral fabric of society
was unraveling, Mann instituted in Massachusetts a universal, nonsectarian, public school system funded through taxation under the assumption that
education would prepare the lower classes for the demands of citizenship in
a democratic state. Far from a Marxist, Mann refused to believe that the rich
accumulated wealth at the expense of the poor, arguing instead that “fully
four-fifths of the pauperism in [his] state could be attributed to liquor,” meaning the immoral choices of the poor stalled their upward mobility (Bowles &
Gintis, 1977, p. 166).
The agenda of the Common School Movement was expansive. On the one
hand, by “common school,” Mann meant that the children of the rich and
the poor would together study the same curriculum, inclusive of the usual
suspects—math, reading, and writing—as well as new subjects, such as foreign languages and geography. However, Mann also pushed for the elimination of the one room school in favor of schools organized by grade and age
cohort, each with its own teacher. In the nineteenth century, schooling available to the masses typically meant an elementary-school education; few high
schools existed. Organizing students into grades would facilitate the establishment of a standardized curriculum, introduce texts matched to grade
4
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
level, and allow schools to construct measures of progress for each grade
level. Male teachers, once dominant in the profession, were pushed out in
favor of women, who were not only less expensive to hire, but also conformed
to the public image that the school had gradually come to replace the family
as the source of expertise when it comes to education. Moreover, Mann firmly
believed that public, not private schools should educate the country’s children (Graham, 2005). Following the onset of the Common School Movement,
enrollment rose dramatically in public schools and declined significantly in
private schools, just as Mann hoped it would. The belief that the rich should
help to finance the education of the poor through taxation was institutionalized too, and student expenditures increased. Perhaps most importantly,
Mann’s “common school” model was gradually adopted by states all over
the country, although most southern states, far less enthusiastic about public schooling than were northern states given that the policy would extend
education to former slaves, waited nearly sixty years to pass legislation mandating universal public education (Bowles & Gintis, 1977; Lieberson, 1980).
EDUCATION AS AMERICANIZATION
Although Mann called for public schooling decades before mass migration
of southern and eastern European immigrants to the United States escalated
in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, the influx of 18
million white ethnic migrants whose culture and religious beliefs differed
from those of native-born whites was troubling to Nativists and led to a
shift in the intended purpose of public schooling, from moral socialization
broadly defined to Americanization. The American elite decided that recent
immigrants would be allowed to hold on to their Catholic churches, Jewish
synagogues, newspapers, and ethnic enclaves, singling out public schools
as the one institution that would Americanize immigrant children by socializing them to adopt mainstream cultural beliefs and norms (Graham, 2005;
Walters, 1999). Because Nativists perceived immigrants as culturally deficient, the upward mobility of immigrants was conditional on their ability to
“become American,” to demonstrate that they had overcome serious deficiencies in language, absorption of mainstream culture, and adherence to
democratic ideals (Rumbaut, 1997, p. 489).
Assimilating white ethnic immigrants into mainstream society quickly
became a national priority as the belief that education formulated as Americanization would facilitate the upward mobility of immigrants gained
traction. Schools targeted the children since elites assumed that immigrant
parents were too heavily invested in their country of origin, but that the
second generation could be socialized to assimilate into American society.
Schools got to work, stripping children of their immigrant culture, installing
Education for Mobility or Status Reproduction?
5
in its place a carefully packaged American culture. Immigrant schoolchildren were required to speak English; they were not allowed to speak the
language of their country of origin. They learned the customs and norms
linked to American patriotism, and virtues such as a strong work ethic
and honesty were drilled into them. Put simply, immigrant children were
compelled to study the very same curriculum that native-born children were
expected to master (Graham, 2005).
As enrollment in public schools increased, the purpose of public school
shifted yet again, from Americanization to more explicit preparation for the
labor force. High school, once reserved primarily for the elite, was established
to serve the lower classes as well as white ethnic immigrants. In the 1890s,
less than 10% of students eligible to attend high school were actually enrolled.
By the 1930s, continuing through high school gained momentum; over 50%
of teenage children were enrolled (Lieberson, 1980). Industrialization meant
that factories began to replace farms as the primary mode of production.
Supervisors wanted white ethnic immigrant laborers fluent in English and
capable of carrying out basic mathematical computations. However, many
immigrant parents were reluctant to leave their teenage children in school
through twelfth grade. The wages they could earn if they were to drop out
would help to sustain the family. Moreover, many immigrant children did not
want to attend high school, especially those for whom the course work was
too hard, or the lure of factory work, even low-status work, too appealing.
The solution was to create two distinct tracks, one for high-school students
who wanted to attend college, another for those who intended to go straight
into the labor force. Students on the first track studied courses necessary for
admittance to college, such as algebra, a foreign language, and history. A distinct vocational track, a watered down version of the traditional curriculum,
was introduced for the noncollege bound, who took courses in shop or home
economics (Graham, 2005). As a result, public high schools helped to create
the blue-collar class, and served as a pathway to college for the much smaller
group of high-achieving white ethnic immigrants.
The notion that public schooling made education available to everyone,
allowing anyone to convert educational achievement into social mobility is
rooted in the experiences of white ethnic immigrants who, as a broad group,
have ascended the class ladder overcoming ethnic discrimination in employment and housing along the way. Today, white ethnicity does not determine
who you may marry, where you live, or your position in the labor market
(Waters, 1990). However, access to public schooling in the late nineteenth
and early twentieth century was either withheld or severely restricted in
the south, where poor, native-born whites and blacks, in particular, were
less likely to receive an education than the northern concentration of newly
arrived white ethnic immigrants and their children (Walters, 1999).
6
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Unlike the north, the south did not contain large pockets of white ethnic
immigrants deemed worthy of assimilation via Americanization by elites
and the general public. Northern immigrants would need to learn English,
many believed, in order to properly exercise the right to vote and work
efficiently in factories. However, educating blacks to participate fully in the
democracy was not essential as blacks were denied full citizenship in the
south. Moreover, southern whites were heavily invested in maintaining the
existing racial hierarchy. Instead of providing valuable skills that could be
converted into a lucrative job, the limited public schooling made available to
blacks was designed to “prepare [blacks] for the caste position prescribed for
them by white Southerners” (Lieberson, 1980, p. 135). Despite the success of
the Common School Movement in the north, there was no public will among
southern whites to extend quality public schooling to blacks (Graham, 2005,
pp. 19–20). Compulsory education laws and child labor laws, established in
the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, were rarely enforced with
respect to southern black children.
Yet, disparities by race in access to public schooling did not emerge right
away. During the Reconstruction Era, when federal intervention allowed
blacks to exercise the right to vote, there was little to no difference in state
funding allocated for white and black students. In North Carolina, for
example, where black children comprised 38% of public school enrollment,
black schools received 1/3 of the state support allocated for public schools.
Although some whites still opposed tax-supported, public schooling for
blacks, so long as blacks could wield the ballot, “proposals to divide taxes
according to the racial origins of taxpayers … were consistently defeated”
(Lieberson, 1980, p. 138). This meant that black and white teachers earned
comparable salaries (about $22 per month for the former, $23 per month for
the latter) and the length of the school year was the same for both groups
(Graham, 2005; Lieberson, 1980). However, as Reconstruction came to an
end, so did southern states’ equitable funding of public schools.
The post-Reconstruction Era was characterized by the reversal of a number
of civil rights for black citizens of the south, among them, unfettered access
to public schooling. Blacks lost political influence just as public school enrollment among whites swelled. Still reeling from the economic downturn created by the Civil War, southern states, with much smaller pots of state funds
at their disposal, elected to reduce significantly funding allocated to schools
for black children. In Alabama, politicians passed new legislation stipulating
that it was not necessary to distribute state funds for public schooling proportionately among the races. The impact of defunding was immediate. While
just a few years before, black and white teachers in Alabama earned nearly
identical salaries, by 1910 white teachers were paid nearly twice as much
as black teachers. Expenditures per pupil now varied by race too: Alabama
Education for Mobility or Status Reproduction?
7
spent $33.40 annually for each white child, compared to a single dollar annually for each black child (Graham, 2005, p. 22). Legislators in Mississippi
established different certification processes for black and white teachers in
1886, linking salary increases to the credentials reserved for white teachers.
By the 1890s, black teachers earned only about 2/3 of white teachers’ salaries
(Lieberson, 1980, p. 141). As southern whites regained control of the economy and the political system, state policy and federal legislation perpetuated
racial exclusion in public schools under the banner of “separate but equal”
(Graham, 2005; Lieberson, 1980), a policy the federal courts would not reverse
until the 1954 Brown ruling.
EDUCATION AS SOCIAL REPRODUCTION
Readers may not be surprised to learn, given the tumultuous history of
public schooling, that the black–white gap in educational achievement
persists to this day, although racial disparities have narrowed somewhat
over time. In their place is a new, equally persistent achievement gap, one
stemming from social class. Indeed, some researchers are beginning to
extend the flawed concept of “separate but equal” to social class inequities,
arguing that poor students require not merely an education equal to that of
their middle-class counterparts, but one that is significantly better if they are
to climb out of poverty (Tough, 2006). Still, class disparities in educational
achievement have received less attention from scholars than racial disparities. In a society obsessed with race, divisions along class lines are not as
visible as racial conflicts, but that view is changing. One indication is that
disparities between lower-class and middle-class blacks on certain social
outcomes are greater than those between blacks and whites (Lacy, 2007).
Another indication that the public is beginning to fixate on class conflict is
a study conducted in 2012 by the Pew Foundation, in which respondents
ranked conflicts between the rich and poor as the most important problem
dividing Americans, not racial divisions, differences between younger and
older cohorts, or even tension between immigrants and natives, the most
important source of conflict identified by respondents in 2009 (Morin, 2012).
The Pew study also assessed respondents’ views on meritocracy through
a question about how the rich became wealthy. We tend to think of achievement as resulting from individual effort, believing that, in a meritocracy,
those who work the hardest reap the greatest rewards. However, findings
from the Pew study suggest individuals are more divided in their perceptions of meritocracy then we might assume. To be sure, 43% of the sample
reported that the rich accumulate wealth through “hard work, ambition,
or education.” However, a slightly larger percentage of the sample, 46%,
indicated that the wealthy have an edge, they get ahead because they “know
8
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
the right people” (Morin, 2012). Respondents who hold this view may
believe the deck is stacked against them, that no matter how hard they try,
their low origins prevent them from ascending the class ladder.
The growing division between the wealthy and everyone else bleeds into
the debate about the relationship between education and inequality. That
educational attainment facilitates upward mobility is one side of the debate.
On the other side, scholars known as social reproduction theorists argue that
affluent groups rely on credentials acquired through the educational system
to maintain their privileged position in society (Gamoran, 2001; Rubinson,
1986). How can this be when the Common School Movement extended universal public schooling to everyone, regardless of class position? One explanation is that once free, universal schooling was established, the elite changed
the rules. For many years, the lower classes completed eighth grade, then
entered the work force. However, once high-school completion becomes normative, a college degree, not a high-school diploma, became the new criteria
required for economic success. As Gamoran explained, “[w]hen saturation
is reached … inequality simply shifts upward, so that relative differences are
preserved” (p. 144). For this reason, social reproduction theorists argue that
the American educational system is designed to prepare children to reproduce the class position of their family of origin, not to rise above their class
position. In other words, while schools appear at first blush to reduce inequality between groups, in actuality, they perpetuate it (MacLeod, 1987).
At the same time, social reproduction theorists have produced compelling
evidence to show that schools reflect the culture and value of the upper
classes, and that this is yet another way in which the elite reinforce their
class position (Willis, 1981). At the forefront of this research is Bourdieu’s
cultural capital concept. The term refers to a person’s proficiency in and
familiarity with “dominant cultural codes and practices … linguistic styles,
aesthetic preferences, styles of interaction” (Aschaffenburg & Maas, 1997).
Bourdieu (1984) insisted that middle-class and upper-middle-class children
enter the school system already in possession of varying degrees of cultural
capital—skills that they have learned from their parents. Children from
families whose lifestyles mirror the skills and preferences of the dominant
culture are better prepared to negotiate the educational system (which is
itself constitutive of the dominant culture), and ultimately achieve greater
success in school. Possession of cultural capital puts a young student on
the fast track to success, not because she is necessarily smarter than those
who lack this resource, but because “she can navigate structures of power
with greater ease, feeling relaxed and comfortable in the social settings they
define and thus interacting with other persons of influence to get things
done” (Massey, 2007, p. 18). Thus, the core issue for scholars concerned
Education for Mobility or Status Reproduction?
9
with educational disparities today is the rising importance of the acquisition of
cultural capital for getting ahead in life.
As journalist Paul Tough (2006) outlines, the research on the impact of cultural capital on important outcomes suggests that poverty is not simply a
lack of material resources, it is also the condition of bounded information,
a lack of the knowledge required to get ahead. Behavioral economist Sendhil
Mullainathan (2013) insists too that being poor is not only about the absence
of money. It is also about the absence of “freedom of mind.” When you are
poor, you are extraordinarily focused on your poverty, which means you are
not free to think about other aspects of your life that also require your attention. This is why, he argues, the poor are more likely to forget to take their
medication, for example. The poor are not necessarily noncompliant; the real
problem is that poverty affects people at a cognitive level and this nagging
distraction alters behavior.
If poor students are preoccupied with the finer details of life, middle-class
students are presumably free to concentrate on excelling academically. There
is theorists posit, something about being middle-class that is helping these
children to get ahead. Increasingly, scholars and journalists are beginning to
argue that this “something” is cultural capital. Middle-class children enter
school with the requisite noncognitive abilities—“self-control, adaptability,
patience, and openness” that are valorized in mainstream society and contribute to academic achievement (Tough, 2006). This focus is itself not new.
Recall the previous discussion of Groton’s headmaster, Endicott Peabody,
who positioned the development of elite character well above the acquisition
of knowledge. However, the literature on culture capital raises new questions about how to help poor students excel. If we inject poor students with
cultural capital, will they succeed?
A relatively new set of charter schools have set out to accomplish this task.
One such school is the Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP). Originating in
Houston in 1994, KIPP schools are now strategically located in predominately
poor and minority neighborhoods all over the country. The administrators of
these schools believe that poor students do not only need to catch up academically, they also need to catch up culturally. Put simply, they need a strong
dose of cultural capital. What kind of cultural capital are the KIPP schools
dispensing? Like Groton, the KIPP schools are concerned with character. The
administrators introduced the acronym SLANT that means “sit up, listen,
ask questions, nod, and track the speaker with [your] eyes.” The school also
rewards students who are well-behaved, exhibit a strong work ethic, and our
respectful of one another. The administrators teach the students that people
who exhibit these qualities are more successful in school and, later, on the job
market (Tough, 2006).
10
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
CONCLUSION
Does education level the playing field? This essay has examined the debate
around this important social outcome. The most common response is that
education is a pathway to assimilation, which, in turn facilitates upward
mobility. However, this explanation is rooted in the experiences of white
ethnic immigrants. There is disagreement about the generalizability of the
model to more recent immigrants of color who face persistent racial discrimination. A different explanation, one that is attentive to social class inequities,
is gaining traction. These theorists argue education fosters a hegemonic
sense of group position, preserving the higher status of the elite and the
lower status of the poor. Charter schools have experimented with providing
poor students with the cultural capital so essential to getting ahead, but
most poor students are not enrolled in these special schools. Additional
research is needed to determine how best to help larger percentages of poor
children to reap the benefits of a high-quality education.
REFERENCES
Aschaffenburg, K., & Maas, I. (1997). Cultural and educational careers: The dynamics
of social reproduction. American Sociological Review, 62, 573–587.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1977). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and
the contradictions of economic life. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc.
Coleman, J. (1968). The concept of equality of educational opportunity. Harvard Educational Review, 38, 7–22.
Gamoran, A. (2001). American schooling and educational inequality: A forecast for
the 21st century. Sociology of Education, 74, 135–153.
Graham, P. (2005). Schooling America: How the public schools meet the nation’s changing
needs. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Karabel, J. (2005). The chosen: The hidden history of admission and exclusion at Harvard,
Yale, and Princeton. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Kao, G., & Thompson, J. S. (2003). Racial and ethnic stratification in educational
achievement and attainment. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 417–442.
Lacy, K. (2007). Blue-chip black: Race, class, and status in the new black middle class. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Lieberson, S. (1980). A piece of the pie: Blacks and white immigrants since 1880. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
MacLeod, J. (1987). Ain’t no makin’ it. New York, NY: Westview Press.
Massey, D. (2007). Categorically unequal: The American stratification system. New York,
NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Morin, R. (2012). Rising share of Americans see conflict between rich and poor. Pew
Research Center paper.
Education for Mobility or Status Reproduction?
11
Mullainathan, S. (June 20, 2013). Presentation, Russell Sage Foundation Forum.
Rubinson, R. (1986). Class formation, politics, and institutions: Schooling in the
United States. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 519–548.
Rumbaut, R. (November 26, 1997). Paradoxes (and Orthodoxies) of assimilation. Sociological Perspectives, 40, 483–511.
Tough, P. (2006). What it takes to make a student. New York Times Magazine.
Walters, P. B. (1999). Education and advancement: Exploring the hopes and dreams of
blacks and poor whites at the turn of the century. In M. Lamont (Ed.), The cultural
territories of race. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Waters, M. (1990). Ethnic options: Choosing identities in America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Willis, P. (1981). Learning to labor: How working-class kids get working-class jobs. New
York, NY: Columbia University Press.
KARYN LACY SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Karyn Lacy is Associate Professor of Sociology and African American Studies at the University of Michigan.
RELATED ESSAYS
Economics of Early Education (Economics), W. Steven Barnett
A Social Psychological Approach to Racializing Wealth Inequality (Sociology), Joey Brown
Culture and Cognition (Sociology), Karen A. Cerulo
Elites (Sociology), Johan S. G. Chu and Mark S. Mizruchi
Enduring Effects of Education (Sociology), Matthew Curry and Jennie E.
Brand
Intergenerational Mobility (Economics), Steve N. Durlauf and Irina
Shaorshadze
Stratification in Hard Times (Sociology), Markus Gangl
Migrant Networks (Sociology), Filiz Garip and Asad L. Asad
Social Class and Parental Investment in Children (Sociology), Anne H.
Gauthier
Racial Disenfranchisement (Political Science), Vincent L. Hutchings and
Davin L. Phoenix
The Emerging Psychology of Social Class (Psychology), Michael W. Kraus
Exploring Opportunities in Cultural Diversity (Political Science), David D.
Laitin and Sangick Jeon
Immigration and the Changing Status of Asian Americans (Sociology),
Jennifer Lee
Intergenerational Mobility: A Cross-National Comparison (Economics),
Bhashkar Mazumder
12
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Stratification and the Welfare State (Sociology), Stephanie Moller and Joya
Misra
Economics and Culture (Economics), Gérard Roland
Returns to Education in Different Labor Market Contexts (Sociology), Klaus
Schöemann and Rolf Becker
Impact of Limited Education on Employment Prospects in Advanced
Economies (Sociology), Heike Solga
The Future of Class Analyses in American Politics (Political Science), Jeffrey
M. Stonecash
Institutional Contexts for Socioeconomic Effects on Schooling Outcomes
(Sociology), Herman G. van de Werfhorst
Public Opinion, The 1%, and Income Redistribution (Sociology), David L.
Weakliem
Assimilation and its Discontents (Sociology), Min Zhou
-
Education for Mobility
or Status Reproduction?
KARYN LACY
Abstract
Everyone is familiar with the popular phrase, “education levels the playing field.”
However, does public schooling really provide opportunities for everyone who is
willing to work hard to succeed? This essay examines the scholarly debate that has
emerged around this long-standing maxim. At one end of the continuum, scholars
draw on the experiences of white ethnic immigrants to make the claim that education is the ticket to upward mobility for students from poor families. However,
critics point to the experiences of marginalized blacks, and increasingly, Latinos,
to reject this claim. At the other end of the continuum, scholars depart from traditional debates about racial disparities per se, shifting their focus to an understudied
disparity—the growing gap in achievement between middle-class students and poor
students. These scholars point to an important new trend in class inequality, one that
has gained momentum in recent years, namely, the rising significance of the acquisition of cultural capital as a necessary prerequisite for upward mobility. Analysis
of this trend is a promising step in the right direction for scholars concerned with
helping disadvantaged students to climb out of poverty.
INTRODUCTION
Last year, in a speech at the US Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Legislative
Summit, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan exhorted, “in America, education must be the great equalizer—the one force that overcomes differences
in race, ethnicity, and privilege … It is time that we level the playing field.”
Most Americans subscribe to the conventional wisdom that a good education is the primary means by which those at the bottom make it to the top. In
a world seemingly rigged in favor of the upper classes, education is typically
perceived as a glaring exception, a sphere where everyone, no matter their
origins, has the same opportunities to get ahead. Many believe that the school
setting provides ample opportunities for individuals from diverse groups
to compete fairly. Those who hold this view reason that high-achieving students naturally rise to the top. This standpoint has staying power because it
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.
1
2
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
is consistent with the most popular tenet of the American Dream, the belief
that everyone has a chance of becoming economically successful so long as
they are willing to work hard.
Yet, far too many racial minorities, poor people, and post-1965 immigrants
have not been brought into the fold, do not see themselves as fully integrated
into the American mainstream, in part because their experiences with the
public school system have been largely negative, severely restricting their
ability to claim their piece of the pie once adult. In terms of academic
performance, whether the measure is test scores, grades, or susceptibility
to tracking, black and Hispanic children are disadvantaged compared to
their white counterparts. Low socioeconomic status explains some of this
disparity, pointing to the need to study more closely the experiences of less
privileged students. With respect to two of the most important educational
outcomes, the transition from high school to college and college completion,
black, Hispanic, and Native American children are less likely to graduate
high school and less likely to graduate from college than either whites or
Asians (Kao & Thompson, 2003). The excerpt from Duncan’s speech makes
clear that the federal government acknowledges differences across groups
in educational attainment, realizes that this disparity is not a matter of
merit alone, and understands that differential access to a quality education
mirrors the social divide already present in the larger society. In that sense,
the difference between the government’s position on the exchange value
of education and the position of the masses is striking. The public strongly
believes in meritocracy, that academic achievement is rewarded and can be
parlayed into the good life, while the Obama Administration is convinced
that race and class discrimination potentially undermine meritocratic
achievement. From the government’s perspective, more federal intervention
is needed to ensure fair play. This essay interrogates the two overriding
assumptions driving opposing sides of the debate on the impact of public
education in American society: Does education really reduce inequality?
Alternatively, is the American educational system designed to perpetuate it?
EDUCATION AMERICAN-STYLE
Today, many Americans take public education for granted. However, before
the introduction of universal public school in the mid-nineteenth century,
formal schooling was uncommon and there was no formal federal policy
designed to regulate the curriculum, teacher credentials, or surging costs
of public education. In some states, public schools charged tuition and fees
while private schools were subsidized by the state (Rubinson, 1986). More
often than not, schooling was the province of the elite, who sent their boys to
prestigious boarding schools and their girls to “finishing” schools (Lieberson,
Education for Mobility or Status Reproduction?
3
1980). In doing so, the elite sought to instill in their sons the kind of toughness
necessary to fulfill their future roles as leaders capable of supervising subordinates. In these exclusive single-sex institutions, what mattered most for the
male children of the upper-class was not so much academic excellence (that
was perceived as effeminate), but rather grit and character, qualities schoolmasters insisted could be nurtured only through rigorous participation in
an organized sport. Endicott Peabody, the founder of the exclusive boarding
school, Groton, required all students to play football whether they wanted
to or not, whether they possessed the physical frame required to excel in the
sport or not, arguing, “I’m not sure I like boys who think too much” (Karabel,
2005, p. 30). In any case, for some time, only a small percentage of Americans
were educated in formal institutions.
Until the mid-nineteenth century, the majority of children in the United
States were not enrolled in any school. During the Colonial Era, children
learned the skills required for economic stability once adult from their
family of origin. Boys learned how to farm as they worked alongside their
fathers in the fields, while girls learned how to keep house as they helped
their mothers complete the daily tasks associated with running a household.
Because the status of low-income families was predetermined, the notion
that working-class children would rise above the status of their family of
origin was virtually inconceivable (Bowles & Gintis, 1977; Coleman, 1968).
Education for the elite alone came to an end with the rise of the Common School Movement in the 1840s led by the Commissioner of Education
in Massachusetts, Horace Mann. Concerned that the moral fabric of society
was unraveling, Mann instituted in Massachusetts a universal, nonsectarian, public school system funded through taxation under the assumption that
education would prepare the lower classes for the demands of citizenship in
a democratic state. Far from a Marxist, Mann refused to believe that the rich
accumulated wealth at the expense of the poor, arguing instead that “fully
four-fifths of the pauperism in [his] state could be attributed to liquor,” meaning the immoral choices of the poor stalled their upward mobility (Bowles &
Gintis, 1977, p. 166).
The agenda of the Common School Movement was expansive. On the one
hand, by “common school,” Mann meant that the children of the rich and
the poor would together study the same curriculum, inclusive of the usual
suspects—math, reading, and writing—as well as new subjects, such as foreign languages and geography. However, Mann also pushed for the elimination of the one room school in favor of schools organized by grade and age
cohort, each with its own teacher. In the nineteenth century, schooling available to the masses typically meant an elementary-school education; few high
schools existed. Organizing students into grades would facilitate the establishment of a standardized curriculum, introduce texts matched to grade
4
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
level, and allow schools to construct measures of progress for each grade
level. Male teachers, once dominant in the profession, were pushed out in
favor of women, who were not only less expensive to hire, but also conformed
to the public image that the school had gradually come to replace the family
as the source of expertise when it comes to education. Moreover, Mann firmly
believed that public, not private schools should educate the country’s children (Graham, 2005). Following the onset of the Common School Movement,
enrollment rose dramatically in public schools and declined significantly in
private schools, just as Mann hoped it would. The belief that the rich should
help to finance the education of the poor through taxation was institutionalized too, and student expenditures increased. Perhaps most importantly,
Mann’s “common school” model was gradually adopted by states all over
the country, although most southern states, far less enthusiastic about public schooling than were northern states given that the policy would extend
education to former slaves, waited nearly sixty years to pass legislation mandating universal public education (Bowles & Gintis, 1977; Lieberson, 1980).
EDUCATION AS AMERICANIZATION
Although Mann called for public schooling decades before mass migration
of southern and eastern European immigrants to the United States escalated
in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, the influx of 18
million white ethnic migrants whose culture and religious beliefs differed
from those of native-born whites was troubling to Nativists and led to a
shift in the intended purpose of public schooling, from moral socialization
broadly defined to Americanization. The American elite decided that recent
immigrants would be allowed to hold on to their Catholic churches, Jewish
synagogues, newspapers, and ethnic enclaves, singling out public schools
as the one institution that would Americanize immigrant children by socializing them to adopt mainstream cultural beliefs and norms (Graham, 2005;
Walters, 1999). Because Nativists perceived immigrants as culturally deficient, the upward mobility of immigrants was conditional on their ability to
“become American,” to demonstrate that they had overcome serious deficiencies in language, absorption of mainstream culture, and adherence to
democratic ideals (Rumbaut, 1997, p. 489).
Assimilating white ethnic immigrants into mainstream society quickly
became a national priority as the belief that education formulated as Americanization would facilitate the upward mobility of immigrants gained
traction. Schools targeted the children since elites assumed that immigrant
parents were too heavily invested in their country of origin, but that the
second generation could be socialized to assimilate into American society.
Schools got to work, stripping children of their immigrant culture, installing
Education for Mobility or Status Reproduction?
5
in its place a carefully packaged American culture. Immigrant schoolchildren were required to speak English; they were not allowed to speak the
language of their country of origin. They learned the customs and norms
linked to American patriotism, and virtues such as a strong work ethic
and honesty were drilled into them. Put simply, immigrant children were
compelled to study the very same curriculum that native-born children were
expected to master (Graham, 2005).
As enrollment in public schools increased, the purpose of public school
shifted yet again, from Americanization to more explicit preparation for the
labor force. High school, once reserved primarily for the elite, was established
to serve the lower classes as well as white ethnic immigrants. In the 1890s,
less than 10% of students eligible to attend high school were actually enrolled.
By the 1930s, continuing through high school gained momentum; over 50%
of teenage children were enrolled (Lieberson, 1980). Industrialization meant
that factories began to replace farms as the primary mode of production.
Supervisors wanted white ethnic immigrant laborers fluent in English and
capable of carrying out basic mathematical computations. However, many
immigrant parents were reluctant to leave their teenage children in school
through twelfth grade. The wages they could earn if they were to drop out
would help to sustain the family. Moreover, many immigrant children did not
want to attend high school, especially those for whom the course work was
too hard, or the lure of factory work, even low-status work, too appealing.
The solution was to create two distinct tracks, one for high-school students
who wanted to attend college, another for those who intended to go straight
into the labor force. Students on the first track studied courses necessary for
admittance to college, such as algebra, a foreign language, and history. A distinct vocational track, a watered down version of the traditional curriculum,
was introduced for the noncollege bound, who took courses in shop or home
economics (Graham, 2005). As a result, public high schools helped to create
the blue-collar class, and served as a pathway to college for the much smaller
group of high-achieving white ethnic immigrants.
The notion that public schooling made education available to everyone,
allowing anyone to convert educational achievement into social mobility is
rooted in the experiences of white ethnic immigrants who, as a broad group,
have ascended the class ladder overcoming ethnic discrimination in employment and housing along the way. Today, white ethnicity does not determine
who you may marry, where you live, or your position in the labor market
(Waters, 1990). However, access to public schooling in the late nineteenth
and early twentieth century was either withheld or severely restricted in
the south, where poor, native-born whites and blacks, in particular, were
less likely to receive an education than the northern concentration of newly
arrived white ethnic immigrants and their children (Walters, 1999).
6
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Unlike the north, the south did not contain large pockets of white ethnic
immigrants deemed worthy of assimilation via Americanization by elites
and the general public. Northern immigrants would need to learn English,
many believed, in order to properly exercise the right to vote and work
efficiently in factories. However, educating blacks to participate fully in the
democracy was not essential as blacks were denied full citizenship in the
south. Moreover, southern whites were heavily invested in maintaining the
existing racial hierarchy. Instead of providing valuable skills that could be
converted into a lucrative job, the limited public schooling made available to
blacks was designed to “prepare [blacks] for the caste position prescribed for
them by white Southerners” (Lieberson, 1980, p. 135). Despite the success of
the Common School Movement in the north, there was no public will among
southern whites to extend quality public schooling to blacks (Graham, 2005,
pp. 19–20). Compulsory education laws and child labor laws, established in
the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, were rarely enforced with
respect to southern black children.
Yet, disparities by race in access to public schooling did not emerge right
away. During the Reconstruction Era, when federal intervention allowed
blacks to exercise the right to vote, there was little to no difference in state
funding allocated for white and black students. In North Carolina, for
example, where black children comprised 38% of public school enrollment,
black schools received 1/3 of the state support allocated for public schools.
Although some whites still opposed tax-supported, public schooling for
blacks, so long as blacks could wield the ballot, “proposals to divide taxes
according to the racial origins of taxpayers … were consistently defeated”
(Lieberson, 1980, p. 138). This meant that black and white teachers earned
comparable salaries (about $22 per month for the former, $23 per month for
the latter) and the length of the school year was the same for both groups
(Graham, 2005; Lieberson, 1980). However, as Reconstruction came to an
end, so did southern states’ equitable funding of public schools.
The post-Reconstruction Era was characterized by the reversal of a number
of civil rights for black citizens of the south, among them, unfettered access
to public schooling. Blacks lost political influence just as public school enrollment among whites swelled. Still reeling from the economic downturn created by the Civil War, southern states, with much smaller pots of state funds
at their disposal, elected to reduce significantly funding allocated to schools
for black children. In Alabama, politicians passed new legislation stipulating
that it was not necessary to distribute state funds for public schooling proportionately among the races. The impact of defunding was immediate. While
just a few years before, black and white teachers in Alabama earned nearly
identical salaries, by 1910 white teachers were paid nearly twice as much
as black teachers. Expenditures per pupil now varied by race too: Alabama
Education for Mobility or Status Reproduction?
7
spent $33.40 annually for each white child, compared to a single dollar annually for each black child (Graham, 2005, p. 22). Legislators in Mississippi
established different certification processes for black and white teachers in
1886, linking salary increases to the credentials reserved for white teachers.
By the 1890s, black teachers earned only about 2/3 of white teachers’ salaries
(Lieberson, 1980, p. 141). As southern whites regained control of the economy and the political system, state policy and federal legislation perpetuated
racial exclusion in public schools under the banner of “separate but equal”
(Graham, 2005; Lieberson, 1980), a policy the federal courts would not reverse
until the 1954 Brown ruling.
EDUCATION AS SOCIAL REPRODUCTION
Readers may not be surprised to learn, given the tumultuous history of
public schooling, that the black–white gap in educational achievement
persists to this day, although racial disparities have narrowed somewhat
over time. In their place is a new, equally persistent achievement gap, one
stemming from social class. Indeed, some researchers are beginning to
extend the flawed concept of “separate but equal” to social class inequities,
arguing that poor students require not merely an education equal to that of
their middle-class counterparts, but one that is significantly better if they are
to climb out of poverty (Tough, 2006). Still, class disparities in educational
achievement have received less attention from scholars than racial disparities. In a society obsessed with race, divisions along class lines are not as
visible as racial conflicts, but that view is changing. One indication is that
disparities between lower-class and middle-class blacks on certain social
outcomes are greater than those between blacks and whites (Lacy, 2007).
Another indication that the public is beginning to fixate on class conflict is
a study conducted in 2012 by the Pew Foundation, in which respondents
ranked conflicts between the rich and poor as the most important problem
dividing Americans, not racial divisions, differences between younger and
older cohorts, or even tension between immigrants and natives, the most
important source of conflict identified by respondents in 2009 (Morin, 2012).
The Pew study also assessed respondents’ views on meritocracy through
a question about how the rich became wealthy. We tend to think of achievement as resulting from individual effort, believing that, in a meritocracy,
those who work the hardest reap the greatest rewards. However, findings
from the Pew study suggest individuals are more divided in their perceptions of meritocracy then we might assume. To be sure, 43% of the sample
reported that the rich accumulate wealth through “hard work, ambition,
or education.” However, a slightly larger percentage of the sample, 46%,
indicated that the wealthy have an edge, they get ahead because they “know
8
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
the right people” (Morin, 2012). Respondents who hold this view may
believe the deck is stacked against them, that no matter how hard they try,
their low origins prevent them from ascending the class ladder.
The growing division between the wealthy and everyone else bleeds into
the debate about the relationship between education and inequality. That
educational attainment facilitates upward mobility is one side of the debate.
On the other side, scholars known as social reproduction theorists argue that
affluent groups rely on credentials acquired through the educational system
to maintain their privileged position in society (Gamoran, 2001; Rubinson,
1986). How can this be when the Common School Movement extended universal public schooling to everyone, regardless of class position? One explanation is that once free, universal schooling was established, the elite changed
the rules. For many years, the lower classes completed eighth grade, then
entered the work force. However, once high-school completion becomes normative, a college degree, not a high-school diploma, became the new criteria
required for economic success. As Gamoran explained, “[w]hen saturation
is reached … inequality simply shifts upward, so that relative differences are
preserved” (p. 144). For this reason, social reproduction theorists argue that
the American educational system is designed to prepare children to reproduce the class position of their family of origin, not to rise above their class
position. In other words, while schools appear at first blush to reduce inequality between groups, in actuality, they perpetuate it (MacLeod, 1987).
At the same time, social reproduction theorists have produced compelling
evidence to show that schools reflect the culture and value of the upper
classes, and that this is yet another way in which the elite reinforce their
class position (Willis, 1981). At the forefront of this research is Bourdieu’s
cultural capital concept. The term refers to a person’s proficiency in and
familiarity with “dominant cultural codes and practices … linguistic styles,
aesthetic preferences, styles of interaction” (Aschaffenburg & Maas, 1997).
Bourdieu (1984) insisted that middle-class and upper-middle-class children
enter the school system already in possession of varying degrees of cultural
capital—skills that they have learned from their parents. Children from
families whose lifestyles mirror the skills and preferences of the dominant
culture are better prepared to negotiate the educational system (which is
itself constitutive of the dominant culture), and ultimately achieve greater
success in school. Possession of cultural capital puts a young student on
the fast track to success, not because she is necessarily smarter than those
who lack this resource, but because “she can navigate structures of power
with greater ease, feeling relaxed and comfortable in the social settings they
define and thus interacting with other persons of influence to get things
done” (Massey, 2007, p. 18). Thus, the core issue for scholars concerned
Education for Mobility or Status Reproduction?
9
with educational disparities today is the rising importance of the acquisition of
cultural capital for getting ahead in life.
As journalist Paul Tough (2006) outlines, the research on the impact of cultural capital on important outcomes suggests that poverty is not simply a
lack of material resources, it is also the condition of bounded information,
a lack of the knowledge required to get ahead. Behavioral economist Sendhil
Mullainathan (2013) insists too that being poor is not only about the absence
of money. It is also about the absence of “freedom of mind.” When you are
poor, you are extraordinarily focused on your poverty, which means you are
not free to think about other aspects of your life that also require your attention. This is why, he argues, the poor are more likely to forget to take their
medication, for example. The poor are not necessarily noncompliant; the real
problem is that poverty affects people at a cognitive level and this nagging
distraction alters behavior.
If poor students are preoccupied with the finer details of life, middle-class
students are presumably free to concentrate on excelling academically. There
is theorists posit, something about being middle-class that is helping these
children to get ahead. Increasingly, scholars and journalists are beginning to
argue that this “something” is cultural capital. Middle-class children enter
school with the requisite noncognitive abilities—“self-control, adaptability,
patience, and openness” that are valorized in mainstream society and contribute to academic achievement (Tough, 2006). This focus is itself not new.
Recall the previous discussion of Groton’s headmaster, Endicott Peabody,
who positioned the development of elite character well above the acquisition
of knowledge. However, the literature on culture capital raises new questions about how to help poor students excel. If we inject poor students with
cultural capital, will they succeed?
A relatively new set of charter schools have set out to accomplish this task.
One such school is the Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP). Originating in
Houston in 1994, KIPP schools are now strategically located in predominately
poor and minority neighborhoods all over the country. The administrators of
these schools believe that poor students do not only need to catch up academically, they also need to catch up culturally. Put simply, they need a strong
dose of cultural capital. What kind of cultural capital are the KIPP schools
dispensing? Like Groton, the KIPP schools are concerned with character. The
administrators introduced the acronym SLANT that means “sit up, listen,
ask questions, nod, and track the speaker with [your] eyes.” The school also
rewards students who are well-behaved, exhibit a strong work ethic, and our
respectful of one another. The administrators teach the students that people
who exhibit these qualities are more successful in school and, later, on the job
market (Tough, 2006).
10
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
CONCLUSION
Does education level the playing field? This essay has examined the debate
around this important social outcome. The most common response is that
education is a pathway to assimilation, which, in turn facilitates upward
mobility. However, this explanation is rooted in the experiences of white
ethnic immigrants. There is disagreement about the generalizability of the
model to more recent immigrants of color who face persistent racial discrimination. A different explanation, one that is attentive to social class inequities,
is gaining traction. These theorists argue education fosters a hegemonic
sense of group position, preserving the higher status of the elite and the
lower status of the poor. Charter schools have experimented with providing
poor students with the cultural capital so essential to getting ahead, but
most poor students are not enrolled in these special schools. Additional
research is needed to determine how best to help larger percentages of poor
children to reap the benefits of a high-quality education.
REFERENCES
Aschaffenburg, K., & Maas, I. (1997). Cultural and educational careers: The dynamics
of social reproduction. American Sociological Review, 62, 573–587.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1977). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and
the contradictions of economic life. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc.
Coleman, J. (1968). The concept of equality of educational opportunity. Harvard Educational Review, 38, 7–22.
Gamoran, A. (2001). American schooling and educational inequality: A forecast for
the 21st century. Sociology of Education, 74, 135–153.
Graham, P. (2005). Schooling America: How the public schools meet the nation’s changing
needs. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Karabel, J. (2005). The chosen: The hidden history of admission and exclusion at Harvard,
Yale, and Princeton. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Kao, G., & Thompson, J. S. (2003). Racial and ethnic stratification in educational
achievement and attainment. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 417–442.
Lacy, K. (2007). Blue-chip black: Race, class, and status in the new black middle class. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Lieberson, S. (1980). A piece of the pie: Blacks and white immigrants since 1880. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
MacLeod, J. (1987). Ain’t no makin’ it. New York, NY: Westview Press.
Massey, D. (2007). Categorically unequal: The American stratification system. New York,
NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Morin, R. (2012). Rising share of Americans see conflict between rich and poor. Pew
Research Center paper.
Education for Mobility or Status Reproduction?
11
Mullainathan, S. (June 20, 2013). Presentation, Russell Sage Foundation Forum.
Rubinson, R. (1986). Class formation, politics, and institutions: Schooling in the
United States. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 519–548.
Rumbaut, R. (November 26, 1997). Paradoxes (and Orthodoxies) of assimilation. Sociological Perspectives, 40, 483–511.
Tough, P. (2006). What it takes to make a student. New York Times Magazine.
Walters, P. B. (1999). Education and advancement: Exploring the hopes and dreams of
blacks and poor whites at the turn of the century. In M. Lamont (Ed.), The cultural
territories of race. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Waters, M. (1990). Ethnic options: Choosing identities in America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Willis, P. (1981). Learning to labor: How working-class kids get working-class jobs. New
York, NY: Columbia University Press.
KARYN LACY SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Karyn Lacy is Associate Professor of Sociology and African American Studies at the University of Michigan.
RELATED ESSAYS
Economics of Early Education (Economics), W. Steven Barnett
A Social Psychological Approach to Racializing Wealth Inequality (Sociology), Joey Brown
Culture and Cognition (Sociology), Karen A. Cerulo
Elites (Sociology), Johan S. G. Chu and Mark S. Mizruchi
Enduring Effects of Education (Sociology), Matthew Curry and Jennie E.
Brand
Intergenerational Mobility (Economics), Steve N. Durlauf and Irina
Shaorshadze
Stratification in Hard Times (Sociology), Markus Gangl
Migrant Networks (Sociology), Filiz Garip and Asad L. Asad
Social Class and Parental Investment in Children (Sociology), Anne H.
Gauthier
Racial Disenfranchisement (Political Science), Vincent L. Hutchings and
Davin L. Phoenix
The Emerging Psychology of Social Class (Psychology), Michael W. Kraus
Exploring Opportunities in Cultural Diversity (Political Science), David D.
Laitin and Sangick Jeon
Immigration and the Changing Status of Asian Americans (Sociology),
Jennifer Lee
Intergenerational Mobility: A Cross-National Comparison (Economics),
Bhashkar Mazumder
12
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Stratification and the Welfare State (Sociology), Stephanie Moller and Joya
Misra
Economics and Culture (Economics), Gérard Roland
Returns to Education in Different Labor Market Contexts (Sociology), Klaus
Schöemann and Rolf Becker
Impact of Limited Education on Employment Prospects in Advanced
Economies (Sociology), Heike Solga
The Future of Class Analyses in American Politics (Political Science), Jeffrey
M. Stonecash
Institutional Contexts for Socioeconomic Effects on Schooling Outcomes
(Sociology), Herman G. van de Werfhorst
Public Opinion, The 1%, and Income Redistribution (Sociology), David L.
Weakliem
Assimilation and its Discontents (Sociology), Min Zhou