Education Pram Race Perpetuates Existing Social Stratification

• Why Kindergarten-Admission Tests Are Worthless — New York Magazine

  The Junior Meritocracy Should a child’s fate be sealed by an exam he takes at the age of 4? Why kindergarten-admission tests are worthless, at best.

  • a mock version of an intelligence test commonly known to New York parents as the ERB. Almost every prestigious private elementary school in the city requires that prospective kindergartners take it.
  • The beauty of a meritocracy is that it is not, at least in theory, a closed system. With the right amount of pluck and hard work, a person should be able to become whoever he or she is supposed to be. Only in an aristocracy is a child’s fate determined before it is born
  • Yet in New York, it turns out that an awful lot is still determined by a child’s 5th birthday. Nearly every selective elementary school in the city, whether it’s public or private, requires standardized exams for kindergarten admission, some giving them so much weight they won’t even consider applicants who score below the top 3 percent
  • if a child manages to vault over it, and in turn gets into one of these selective schools, it can set him or her on a successful glide path for life.
  • Many of these lucky graduates wouldn’t have been able to go to these Ivy League feeders to begin with, if they hadn’t aced an exam just before kindergarten. And of course these advantages reverberate into the world beyond
  • Given the stakes, it’s hardly a surprise that New Yorkers with means and aspirations for their children would go to great lengths to help them
  • what’s surprising is that a single test, taken at the age of 4, can have so much power in deciding a child’s fate in the first place. The fact is, 4 is far too young an age to reach any conclusions about the prospects of a child’s mind. Even administrators who use these exams—indeed, especially the administrators who use these exams—say they’re practically worthless as predictors of future intelligence.

.

Read Full Post »

ペアレントクラシー（Parentocracy）

文部科学省
教育安心社会の実現に関する懇談会報告 ～教育費の在り方を考える～
平成２１年７月３日
http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/21/07/1281312.htm

.

{ … 昨今では、経済雇用状況の悪化により、所得の格差の拡大、努力や挑戦意欲の減退、社会における安定性・一体性のほころびなどが懸念されている。

…「機会の平等」が確保されていないことで生まれる格差（親の所得、資産等による格差の固定化・再生産）は、「希望喪失社会」につながるなどの懸念が指摘され、….

②親の所得等が子どもの教育等に及ぼす影響（参考資料編P.40～P.42を参照）
生徒の社会経済文化的背景と学力、保護者の所得と子どもの教育等との関連を示すデータとして、例えば、以下のものがある。

○ 親の所得が少ないほど子どもの大学進学率が低く、逆に就職する割合が高い、
○ 親の所得が高いほど子どもの学力調査の結果が高い、
○ 就学援助を受けている児童生徒の割合の高い学校の方が平均正答率が低い傾向、
○ 中卒・高卒におけるフリーター比率は高く、年々増加傾向にある

…、所得をはじめとした様々な家庭環境の差異が子どもの進学機会や学力の差、意欲の差を通じてやがては子どもの職業や生涯賃金などにも影響するとすれば、それが次世代に連なることなり、階層間格差の固定化、あるいは、貧困の世代間連鎖につながることが懸念される。

○ 子どもの社会経済文化的背景と学力には相関関係が見られる
○ 父親の職業等に応じて学習時間や学習の好き嫌いに差がみられる
○ 親の学歴により学習時間に差が見られる
○ 親の所得が少ないほど子どもの大学進学率が低く、就職の割合が高い
○ 親の所得が高いほど子どもの学力調査の結果が高い

参考データ

○生徒の社会経済文化的背景と学力
○家庭の文化的背景と学習意欲
○父親の職業と学習時間
○親の学歴と学習時間（高校生）
○ 親の収入と高校卒業後の進路
○世帯所得・学校外教育費支出と学力の関係
＜世帯所得別の算数学力平均値＞
＜一ヶ月の学校外教育費支出と算数学力平均値＞

・お茶の水女子大学２１世紀ＣＯＥプログラム（誕生から死までの人間発達科学）の事業として調査を実施（平成18年９月公表）。
・子どもを取り巻く家庭環境が与える学力形成の影響について調査
・関東地方にある人口約２５万人の中都市に住む、小学校６年生とその保護者を対象に調査。（対象は300名程度）
http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/21/07/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2009/08/31/1281312_2.pdf
}

.

お茶の水女子大学委託研究・補完調査について
耳塚寛明
http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chousa/shotou/045/shiryo/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2009/08/06/1282852_2.pdf

.

{「学力格差社会」の現状と課題
耳塚 寛明（お茶の水女子大学教授）

何が学力を決めるのか

学校現場には努力万能神話あるいは「学力は努力に比例する、だからがんばれ！」という「がんばれ！」主義が存在しています。しかしその考え方は事実なのでしょうか。

… つまり父親の学歴が子どもの努力と学力に影響しているということです。

ペアレントクラシーの時代を迎えて

高学歴家庭においては無意識的に備わることの多い文化的環境 ―例えば豊富な書籍や博物館見学等の文化的体験、視聴するテレビ番組、茶の間の話題－ すら学力に影響します。そうした文化的環境と体験に恵まれた子どもに、恵まれない子どもが追いつくには、先述のとおり格段の努力を要することになります。

教育の不平等を乗り越えるために

現在の日本社会は2つの教育の不平等に直面しています。1つは所得に起因する学力と教育機会の格差で、もう1つは文化による学力と教育機会の格差です。

http://blhrri.org/info/koza/koza_0150.htm
}

.

{ 御茶の水女子大学教授　耳塚　寛明

業績主義社会では、人々が能力と努力を平等に競えるよう、「機会の均等」化が社会を維持する前提となります。ところがペアレントクラシーは、平等な競争という前提が保証されない社会です。そればかりか、生まれた家庭の経済力や教育的期待の大きさによって、格差が子どもの世代へと相続されてしまう、「再生産社会」です。
では、なにをなすべきでしょうか。

学力格差は、もはや教育問題ではありません。格差が子どもの家庭的背景、とりわけ経済力に由来するからです。それゆえ、学力格差を根本から是正するためには、所得格差の緩和や、雇用を促進する、社会政策を必要とします。

http://www.nhk.or.jp/kaisetsu-blog/400/4916.html
}

.

{ Conway, S. (1997) ‘The Reproduction of Exclusion and Disadvantage: Symbolic Violence and Social Class Inequalities in “Parental Choice” of Secondary Education’

• Conway: The Reproduction of Exclusion and Disadvantage

  • Following the enhancement of parental choice through the 1988 Education Act, an increasing body of educational literature, aside from describing parent wants and the implications for internal organisation and external marketing, includes criticism of it as yet another way of privileging the middle class over the working class (eg. Halstead, 1994). This paper argues that parental choice is a social field where social relations are reproduced, reinforced and mediated
  • The paper concludes that parental choice is a new aspect of social reproduction that clearly demonstrates Bourdieu’s explanation of the interrelation between ‘habitus’ and social ‘field’
  • This paper argues that parental choice of secondary education is a social ‘field’ which, by reproducing, reinforcing and mediating social relations, helps to strengthen the advantage of the middle classes over the working class.
  • choice is an outcome of the ‘privatisation’ of social resources-in this case education- through the emphasis upon consumerism. In The Parent’s Charter, introduced by the Conservative government, for example, the idea that choice systems discriminate against the working class is ignored. Instead, an even playing field is assumed. Parents are counselled on their ‘duty’ to consume education and take responsibility for their child’s future. Education is de-politicised at the stroke of a pen; what matters most is responsible consumerism: ‘You have a duty to ensure that your child gets an education – and you can chose the school that you would like your child to go to. Your choice is wider as a result of recent changes’ (The Parents Charter, cited in Gewirtz et al, 1995: p. 21). Following writers like Bauman (1992), one could argue that consumerism represents a more subtle form of social control for those without the ability to pay. Thus new buzzwords like ‘choice’, ‘freedom’, ‘standards’ and ‘excellence’ are denied to those who are socially and economically disadvantaged. This denial is being obscured by what Brown (1994) describes as the ‘ideology of parentocracy’, which also provides further enclaves and opportunities for the pursuit of social distinction amongst the middle classes. For Brown, three ideologies or ‘waves’ underpin the socio-historical development of British education. The first consisted of the rise of mass education in the late nineteenth century. The ‘second wave’ involved a shift towards individual merit and achievement or ‘meritocracy’. The ‘third wave’ involves a shift from child to parent centred education within an ‘ideology of parentocracy’. As Brown describes it, ‘…a system whereby the education a child receives must conform to the wealth and wishes of the parents rather than the abilities and efforts of pupils.’
  • The key point here, then, is that the ideology of parentocracy is a symbolic manifestation which serves to mask the production and reproduction of structured social inequalities; that is, it symbolises choice, and therefore obscures the lack of choice of the disadvantaged because of their lack of economic and conceptual abilities to play the game of choice.
  • Market orientated choice has political functions in that it deflects ‘consumers’ away from the idea of government responsibility
  • The purpose of this paper, then, is to deconstruct the way parental choice represents a space for the expression of symbolic power and consequent violence against those who do not have the social, economic and cultural resources to take advantage of it as a mechanism for the take up of educational resources.
  • Bourdieu’s concepts of the habitus and field were useful here in that they reveal, as a part of his general resource theory, how many working class people referred to in the research are not equipped with sufficient social, cultural and economic capital to play the game of choosing a school. As the head of St. James’ puts it, in so many words, many working class parents do not have what could be described as an ‘explicit view’, or awareness of, a ‘marketplace’ in education. Middle class parents, on the other hand, showed a skilful feel for the game. Many were well aware of statistical performance data on local schools, whilst working class parents tended to be less informed. Many were also very adroit in terms of choosing a school. For example, in showing awareness of ‘good school’ catchment areas ….
    }

.

Read Full Post »