Conflict theory, feminist theory, and symbolic interactionism have a similar perception of the role of schools in shaping social inequalities, albeit conflict and feminist theories observe the problem from a macrosociological perspective, while symbolic interactionism takes a microsociological approach to the problem. The focus, for all three theories, is on inequalities and on the perpetuation of social stratification in the educational setting.
Feminist theory posits that the role of the school should be to ensure that girls and young women are given the same rights and opportunities as boys and young men (Little et al., 2014). They should have equal access to the available educational opportunities and be equally prepared to enter the work …show more content…
Also, entering into professions typically thought of as men 's professions is still complicated for women, even if they have been as, or even more, successful than their male counterparts in an equally prestigious educational institution.
Symbolic interactionism does not stop to the consider whether or not the educational system is truly a meritocracy. Even if it were, a symbolic interactionist would argue, it would still breed inequalities, due to the way the system is structured. Grading itself imposes some labeling on students, such as A, B, and C students, or more simply, high-achievers and low-achievers (Little et al., 2014). These labels are determining students ' self-perception and self-categorization, thus the school here assumes the role of the first intragenerational social stratification agent.
A conflict theorist, on the other hand, would stress the role of the cultural capital and the practice of tracking as two of the main ways in which schools perpetuate class differences (Little et al., …show more content…
The results of this research puzzle me even more. An increase in the dropout rate among low-achieving students seems to indicate that earlier tracking is benefiting them, rather than harming them—at least, for what concerns finishing their studies, which is anyway an important part in social and income mobility. So, the question is whether the increase in social and income mobility is given by low-achieving students gaining higher positions in society or the other way around, which is to say high-achievers losing
Feminist theory posits that the role of the school should be to ensure that girls and young women are given the same rights and opportunities as boys and young men (Little et al., 2014). They should have equal access to the available educational opportunities and be equally prepared to enter the work …show more content…
Also, entering into professions typically thought of as men 's professions is still complicated for women, even if they have been as, or even more, successful than their male counterparts in an equally prestigious educational institution.
Symbolic interactionism does not stop to the consider whether or not the educational system is truly a meritocracy. Even if it were, a symbolic interactionist would argue, it would still breed inequalities, due to the way the system is structured. Grading itself imposes some labeling on students, such as A, B, and C students, or more simply, high-achievers and low-achievers (Little et al., 2014). These labels are determining students ' self-perception and self-categorization, thus the school here assumes the role of the first intragenerational social stratification agent.
A conflict theorist, on the other hand, would stress the role of the cultural capital and the practice of tracking as two of the main ways in which schools perpetuate class differences (Little et al., …show more content…
The results of this research puzzle me even more. An increase in the dropout rate among low-achieving students seems to indicate that earlier tracking is benefiting them, rather than harming them—at least, for what concerns finishing their studies, which is anyway an important part in social and income mobility. So, the question is whether the increase in social and income mobility is given by low-achieving students gaining higher positions in society or the other way around, which is to say high-achievers losing