20 The School and the University

The University stands for humanism and tolerance, for reason, for adventure of ideas and for the search of truth. It stands for the forward march of the human race towards even higher objectives. If the universities discharge their duties adequately then it is well with the nation and the people.

– Jawaharlal Nehru

Introduction

All of us are aware of the existence of schools, colleges and universities. Some of us indeed have been privileged to be able to spend a significant portion of our lives gaining education within the haloed precincts of schools and universities. And yet how often is it that we stop to ponder and ask ourselves, what is a school? What constitutes the essence of schooling? How is the university different from the school? How do these institutions relate with society? Perhaps not so often. The beauty of organised social life is that we tend to take many aspects of social organisation for granted. However, this is where the sociologist steps in. Sociologists specifically study the way institutions and processes are organised in society and how they relate with one another.

In this module you will learn about one the most fundamental institutions of organised education – the school, and the university.

What is a School?

A school is an institution designed for the teaching of students (or “pupils”) under the direction of teachers. Most societies have at least some system of formal education, which is commonly compulsory and is administered wholly or partly through state intervention. The use of the term school varies by country, as do the names of the various levels of education within the country’s educational system. There are also several categories among schools themselves based on source of funding, level up to which they impart education, the medium of instruction, whether it houses boarders or students are day scholars, etc. However, in this module our principal focus is on understanding the concept of school as an institution in its most basic and general sense and placing it in perspective sociologically.

The school can be understood sociologically at two levels:

• At the micro level the school itself becomes the object of study. It can be understood as a social system with its own unique culture and values. It is characterised by division of labour and patterns of interaction, a system of stratification and power relations.
• At the macro level one looks at the patterns of interaction between the school and the community, including the state, the parents, students and other stakeholders. Members of the school also have simultaneous occupation of other social groups. At the wider level of analysis a school can be regarded as a part of the wider network of the school system and the social matrix in general.

Schools as we know and understand did not always exist in society. These are the products of modernisation. One of the earliest accounts of the school is found in a collection of lectures by Dewey brought out in 1899. Called The School and Society, this book generated considerable interest in the role of the school as a social institution and its contribution to the community. In 1968, Martin Shipman’s Sociology of the School presented various perspectives on the school. In the early 20th century educational sociology had started being taught as a distinct sub discipline and the discourse on schools and schooling occupied a central place within it.

The school is not merely a physical construction it is also an ideological one. Each participant in the school life – teacher and student – also constructs his own reality about the school. So a school is not just a social institution; it is constructed out of the meanings that participants endow it with. The school has certain external social linkages such as with the state and society and a very real internal dynamics of its own. Often it is the state that intervenes to constitute and standardise the curriculum that is to be taught and to ensure uniformity in the manner in which students are to be graded. Both sets of processes are real and while being mutually discrete are also intertwined with one another. Society also has certain expectations from schools in general and certain specific schools in particular.

Objectives of schooling

The principal objective of schooling is of course the most obvious one – to impart education. In addition schools also socialise the individual into the norms and values of a given society. In that sense they act as instruments of transmission of the cultural heritage. They are also the basic ground for the genesis of ideas and play a role in the transformation of culture. Schools help shape an individual into all that is considered desirable in a given society. They also provided suitably educated manpower for society to occupy the labour force.

The need for school as the agency of socialization

The school is by far the only agency of modern society that can fulfil the above functions.

Despite criticisms of the school system, it continues, as it is a necessity of society.

Socialization is one of the most important functions of schools. According to American sociologist Talcott Parsons, after primary socialization within the family, it is the school that takes over as the socialising agency. The school becomes a bridge between the family and the society as a whole and prepares the child for social life. The transition from ascribed to achieved statuses and particularistic to universalistic standards of evaluation is facilitated by the school. The school for the student represents the society in a microcosm and the process of schooling trains children into the rules of their social world.

Ideas about the school

Ideas about the school have stemmed from two main theoretical sources – the functionalist perspective and Marxian analysis of indoctrination and repression.

Functionalist Perspective

The functional perspective views education as one of the important institutions of society – indeed as a prerequisite for the existence of a social system. Functionalists view the school as a system and an essential component of the educational system as well as the social system in general. Sociologist Emile Durkheim in particular has given an outstanding treatise on the role of education and schooling. Durkheim lays special emphasis on the socialising role of the school. Drawing upon the organic analogy Durkheim perceives the school as a vital organ in the social system. The school maintains continuity and at the same time is the agency from which new and emerging currents of change emanate. Since the school has the task of preserving the culture in addition to imparting knowledge, enforcement of discipline becomes an important component of schooling.

Critics of this kind of perspective point out that the school becomes a medium of indoctrination, and in the name of transmission of culture actually returns individuals trained to conform and comply.

The Marxist Approach

For Marxists, the hierarchical nature of both the structure and process of schooling transmits a culture of subordination and hierarchy that are essential to turn out workers, managers and bureaucrats of the future. Therefore, it is the form of schooling not its content that is all important. According to Marxists, subordination and control were the original and explicitly stated functions of schooling but they have become hidden in recent years behind an official educational ideology of equal opportunity and meritocracy. Consequently, this perspective has as its starting point the political nature of schooling and questions in whose interest the system works.

According to Bowles & Gintis (1976), for instance schools act to furnish the economy with a labour force provided with the appropriate skills, personalities and attitudes. Schools are involved in the production of a submissive, obedient and disciplined workforce. This is a ‘hidden’ function of schooling because it is contrary to the professed ideology of schooling, in which the school is viewed as a device to promote social reform and social mobility. The hidden curriculum operates through a ‘ correspondence’ between the structure of schooling and the economic system. The nature of work and social relations fostered in the educational system mirror those in capitalist society. For example, students have to obey orders; they have no control over the curriculum, and as such gain little intrinsic satisfaction from school work. According to Bowles and Gintis, these conditions mirror students’ future positions in the workforce as there too the worker has no control over work and experiences little intrinsic satisfaction. The school is a mechanism for the reproduction of the existing social relations of production.

Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionists give primacy to the nature of the interactions in a social setting. This perspective suggests the idea that the ‘ reality’ of the classroom is a negotiated reality between students and teachers, constituted of the curriculum and the classroom as the site of the interaction. Through Erwing Goffman’s dramaturgical approach the school can be seen as a stage where students and teachers present themselves in prescribed manners negotiating their daily worlds to ensure that performance disruptions do not occur. Students who perform best are rewarded while under performers are coaxed into conformity.

Sociologist Erwing Goffman’s framework of the ‘total institution’ is also useful for understanding the school, especially the boarding school. In a total institution inmates lead enclosed formally administered lives. There is a prescribed pattern and a privilege system designed to reward those who conform. Inmates are viewed in opposition to the staff. The staff form a separate and superior category. Inmates are raw material of the routine work of the staff and arrangements are made to administer them efficiently. We can thus see that it is possible to see aspects of total institutions in most schools – from the organisation of the curriculum, and transacting it through the academic calendar and the timetable to the symbolic barriers of playground and classrooms.

Alternatives to the School

There are various specific case studies and theories on pedagogy and schooling that can be accommodated within the above mentioned three broad frameworks. Some of these question more deeply the merits of the existing school system and pedagogic practices. Most influential among such theorists are Ivan Illich and Paulo Freire.

According to Ivan Illich (1926-2002) education should provide the opportunity for an individual to explore one’s potential and use initiative and judgement to develop one’s faculties and talents to the fullest. Or alternately, at the very basic, education is to do with the acquisition of certain specific socially useful skills such as a language or a craft. According to Illich, schools as they exist and function today are ill equipped to achieve these goals. For Illich, the existing format of school education itself is self-defeating in nature.

For Illich, ‘real’ learning would entail involvement of the student in every aspect of the learning process. Illich argues that in the present educational system students have little say in the decision making with regard to their own education. Their involvement is limited to compliance with the norms and standards. Illich therefore sees schools as repressive institutions that stifle creative expression, instil conformity and crush pupils into accepting the interests of the powerful and believing these to be just. Expressing disappointment at this restrictive nature of institutionalized education, Illich calls for “deschooling”, making a case for an alternative system of self-directed education, supported by voluntary social relationships and conducted through fluid informal arrangements.

Paulo Freire, (1921-1997) in his seminal work, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, proposes a pedagogic paradigm with a new relationship between teacher, student, and society. Dedicated to the underprivileged or the oppressed, and based on his own experiences while helping Brazilian adults to read and write, the work encloses a detailed Marxist class analysis in its exploration of the relationship between the teacher and the taught. Freire criticises the traditional educational paradigm that ‘domesticates’ people and calls instead for a liberating education. “Education for domestication” tames and conditions people into resigning to their lot in life. “Libertarian education” on the other hand, gives people self-confidence and a sense of being able to choose their own destiny.

For education therefore, Freire calls for a dialogic exchange between teachers and students, where both learn, both question, both reflect and both participate in the creation of meaning. In conventional patterns of schooling, teachers engage in a monologue which is inflicted upon the students. There is an essential asymmetry and one-sidedness in the teacher-taught relationship where the teacher doles out knowledge to the student who is to be appropriately grateful for this benevolence. Freire questions this paradigm and suggests a relationship of mutual give and take between the teacher and the taught. Concretely, this pedagogy begins with the teacher mingling among the community, asking questions of the people and learning about their day-to-day lives in order to assess their pedagogic requirements. Through an understanding of peoples’ conceptions the teacher learns to appreciate the social reality of the students and use this knowledge to reformulate the nature and content of classroom interaction through a set of ideas that those students can actually relate to.

Freire, rejects what he calls the banking model that conventional pedagogy follows wherein students are regarded as empty vessels to be filled with information. The analogy of a child’s piggy bank is useful to illustrate the nature of prevalent educational practices. According to Freire, the student in the traditional model of education is treated like a piggy bank – an inert receptacle to be filled with knowledge. He coined the phrase “banking education”, alluding to an educational system where learners are passive recipients of knowledge that is pre-selected for them to be ‘deposited’ into their minds as if the mind were to be a bank for information. According to Freire this banking concept of education reinforces the power of the oppressor. Knowledge is regarded as a gift to be bestowed by those who consider themselves knowledgeable upon those who are considered ignorant. The consequence of this is an experience of education where students are socialised to accept the passive role the system imposes on them and thereby also their ascribed social statuses. Students are taught to adapt to the world as it is and to the fragmented view of reality deposited by the teacher who becomes a de facto oppressor. According to Freire, in this manner, we prevent the rise of free thinking individuals who would strive to enhance and surpass the aspirations of those great leaders who have fought for equality and the end of oppression.

You can read in detail about the views of these theorists in other lessons in this Course. The main idea that we must appreciate at this point is that the school and the university, especially the former, do often appear to function as autocratic unidirectional structures of command, and yet, there is no effective alternative mechanism for systematically and consistently imparting and administering knowledge to a vastly populated, heterogeneous society. Moreover, ever since the inception of democracy and democratic social institutions as well as the steady emergence of a civil society, there have been significant strides in school reforms; punishments have been made less ‘painful’, rules are more student-friendly, and a system of continued interaction between teachers and parents and other stake holders is in place. Even so, ideas on egalitarian liberating systems of education remain welcome, to act as guiding lights to reform the education system rendering it suitable to the times we live in and sensitive to social conditions and needs.

The University

A university is an institution of higher education and research which grants academic degrees in diverse subjects and provides both undergraduate and postgraduate education. The word university is derived from the Latin word universitas meaning the whole, total. The Latin phrase for university, universitas magistrorum et scholarium, means a totality of masters and scholars. The university thus traditionally defined promises to be an institution that provides universal and complete education.

In the west, the earliest universities were developed under the aegis of the Catholic Church. The university was known as the studium generale meaning broadly, a place or institute of studies where people from all parts of the world may come to study any (known) subject. These universities allowed entry to students from all regions and they taught all the subjects of study that were then prevalent at the time, such as the liberal arts, philosophy, logic, theology, mathematics, astronomy, astrology, law, grammar and rhetoric, and medicine. Teaching was done by Masters. Students could choose subjects and combinations thereof that they wanted to. (This is similar to the concept that is now being introduced in universities in India under what is known as the ‘choice based credit system’!) In that sense the university gave an almost utopian sense of intellectual flexibility and freedom. The great universities attracted students from far and wide in their quest for knowledge. Synchronously there were also the studia particulare which were restricted in reach to specific areas and tended to take local students.

In the modern era when nation-states developed, many universities got established under the auspices of the state or got funded at least in part by the state. The structural organisation of the university shifted from student as the core to a faculty governance model. Universities though still largely remained independent, almost as esoteric islands in a politically live field. However, university leadership started being increasingly appointed by the state. Scientists and social scientists started experiencing dilemmas between freedom and their own ethical responsibility. Sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920), has written at length extremely thought provokingly about these dilemmas of value freedom and ideological commitment.

In terms of curriculum and research areas, the early modern universities initially continued the disciplinary paradigm followed in the middle ages. Thereafter, humanist professors were inducted into the university faculty, and the study of language was transformed through the studia humanitatis, from emphasis on rules of grammar and rhetoric into creative writing and speaking. Classical texts were now open to translation and interpretation and not just to be memorised and repeated. This gave further impetus to the idea of intellectual freedom that the university is founded upon.

However at the level of functioning there have been limits to these notions of unrestricted freedom because universities are bound within demarcated physical spaces, and usually therefore can admit only a definite number of students and faculty based on certain rational criteria. In terms of inter disciplinary engagement also, there is restricted movement because even within a particular university, there is usually strict segregation between disciplines and departments especially between the science and the humanities streams.

Organization of the University System

Most universities have a common basic pattern of organisation. At the helm is the syndicate or a governing board; there is a president or chancellor who in the case of state owned or funded institutions is the head of state or province; a vice president or vice-chancellor who is a scholar of eminence and the de facto head of the university, and is appointed for a specific term at the pleasure of the chancellor. In addition there are deans of various divisions and departments. Universities are generally divided into a number of academic centres, departments or schools or faculties. There may be a number of colleges in a university. Colleges function in coordination with the parent university. In most countries, colleges provide undergraduate and post graduate degree or diploma programmes while research studies are conducted in the universities. There may be variations within this schema based on a number of extraneous factors such as age of the institution, space available in terms of buildings, specialized agenda of the institution, the source or agency of funding, etc. In a public university system the government or government-run higher education board reviews the finances and allocate funds for each university in the system. In spite of this reliance on the government, public universities tend to enjoy a considerable degree of academic freedom. Private universities are privately funded and while they may have certain autonomy from the state, in many cases they lack the diversity and the intellectual freedom that the public university enjoys.

In India, the National Assessment and Accreditation Council, NAAC, conducts mandatory assessment of universities, both public and private and thus acts as a safeguard of quality as well brings about a standardization of curricular and pedagogic practice. There are also ‘deemed universities’ which are high-performing institutions that hold much promise. Sometimes the word ‘varsity’ is used synonymously with university. The term varsity finds some prevalence in the United Kingdom and some commonwealth countries.

Dilemma between University Autonomy and Academic Accountability The Humboldtian model

In the 19th century, the German university pattern was developed conceived by Wilhelm von Humboldt and laid stress on academic freedom, discourses and seminars, and research laboratories in universities. In contrast the French university model was one of strict discipline and control over every aspect of the university. The idea of a university ambience in which teaching and research took place combined with the search for the objective truth was the keynote of the German Humboldtian model. It espoused intellectual freedom in research and teaching, university autonomy, the growth of independent disciplines with their own standards and priorities, and internationalism. Since the very beginning, universities have been international institutions (studia generalia). This model became popular in America and the rest of the free world from the 20th century onwards.

However, though this intellectual freedom is refreshing and can lead to productive research, the construct of the free intelligentsia or the unattached intellectual has led to serious questions about the elitism of these universalistic institutions of higher learning. Education is not and should not be the preserve of the social elite. There was also felt a need for skill based and vocational training to be imparted through universities. Furthermore, with the increasing dominance of the free market economy and consequent economic globalisation, research has become greatly aligned with market requirements. Research is encouraged and funding more readily available in those areas that stand to support certain political or economic agendas. Teaching and research are also no longer necessarily interlinked. Students too tend to view university education as a means to a market centric end and technical and skill based courses are emerging more popular than pure disciplinary areas. Universities have also been brought under the ambit of corporate social responsibility and their goals are required to be in tune with the values of the wider society in which they thrive. Despite the lofty ideals under which universities were conceived, they have, for the main, had to come out of their ivory towers and the imagery of the maverick professor in the search for truth is possibly an exception rather than the rule.

Evaluation

Universities provide the space for scholars and scientists to pursue knowledge, to teach and learn and to publish their findings. In a democratic society academics sometimes also behave as public intellectuals, they pronounce their opinion on matters of state and society and more often than not their views are highly regarded. Hence they have this immense burden of integrity and credibility.

At the institutional level, although universities enjoy a certain amount of autonomy of governance and decision making, it is also equally important that they be brought under some agency for monitoring and standardization of syllabi and educational standards. There is always a possibility that in a modern capitalist economy curricula and research agendas could be market dominated. There is also the possibility of ideological biases. Hence subjecting the university to public gaze and peer review is ironically in the interest of safeguarding the objectivity and integrity of the institution. Universities too have to follow the practices of social justice and equity that operate in the wider society in which they exist. In the long run the process of review helps stimulate the academic environment for promotion of quality in teaching, learning and research in institutions of higher education. It encourages self-evaluation, accountability, autonomy and innovations in higher education. This ultimately benefits all stakeholders and contributes to the overall development of a nation. It also makes the educational system globally competent, competitive and viable.

Conclusion

Education is one of the most fundamental of social institutions. Schools are the basic agency outside the family which help the process of socialization. As teaching institutions both schools and universities are the creators and transmitters of intellectual tradition. It is not sufficient for an institution to fulfil its own esoteric objectives. The educational institution has to be socially sensitive and take a proactive role in serving the good of society including the poor and the marginalised. The values enshrined in the constitution have to be the beacon lights of any institution – it cannot be a repository of knowledge without a conscience – teachers and students have the dual commitment – to knowledge and to society.

REFERENCES

• Anderson, Robert. 2010. “The ‘Idea of a University’ today” in History & Policy. http://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers.
• Berdahl, Robert. 1990. “Academic Freedom, Autonomy and Accountability in British Universities.” Studies in Higher Education, Volume 15, Issue 2, 169-180 (Published online 05 Aug 2006).
•  Bowles, S and Gintis, H. 1976. Schooling in Capitalist America. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
•  Jayaram, N. 2015. Sociology of Education in India (Second Edition). New Delhi: Rawat Publications.
• Pathak, Avijit. 2002. Social Implications of Schooling: Knowledge, Pedagogy and
• Consciousness. Delhi: Rainbow Publishers Ltd.
•  Shotton,  John  Robert.  1998.  Learning  and  Freedom:  Policy,  Pedagogy  and
• Paradigms in Indian Education and Schooling. New Delhi: Sage Publications.
•  Thapan, Meenakshi. 2006. Life at School: An Ethnographic Study. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.