21 Social Reproduction of Education

Dr. K G Gayathri Devi

Introduction

Development today stands on such a threshold that livelihood issues cannot be addressed without reference to education. Modern societies have entered into a situation of never being able to dream of development without achieving ‘mass literacy’. Education is viewed as one of the important strategies of creating ‘ability’ among citizens to establish an understanding of their vision of society and convert it into an operational reality. It is expected to orient them towards becoming self-motivating agents of social mobility and transformation for themselves and society.

From the above perspective, education is considered as one of the prominent agents of social transformation and as one that takes people towards sustainable development. It enables this by enhancing opportunities for people and building their abilities to acquire knowledge. It is supposed to create awareness among people about their own lives and evolve strategies to improve the same through such factors like better nutrition, health status and access to legal rights and responsibilities as citizens of a country. Sociologists like Wilbert Moore (1965) have referred to education as a ‘Lever of Social Change’. This is obviously because of its advantages for promoting social mobility and social transformation. Its role in facilitating social and economic development is discussed and debated in contemporary sociological and political discourses (Shavit and Blossfeld 1993).

Sociology of Education is a sub-discipline of Sociology that addresses the issues of systematic learning through formal institutions such as the school. Beginning with the school it extends its academic horizon to higher bodies of learning. Formal education has expanded widely in its knowledge base in recent decades in almost all societies, reaching a stage where it is considered as the prerequisite for development. Not just this, it has also become an indispensable tool in achieving social mobility for vulnerable groups. The work of Emile Durkheim shed light on the moral aspects of education emphasising its role in ‘organic solidarity’ (Ottaway 1968). Max Weber also placed much importance on education and called it as the instrument of political control (in his study of China). Sociology also began to assert that with growing ‘technological functionalism’ or industrialisation, caste and class distinctions imposed by social stratification begin to lose their importance making way for an egalitarian society with scope for social mobility and transformation towards positive reconstruction of a sick society with socially stratified groups and conflict ridden atmosphere.

Interface between Education and Society

The above analysis about the importance of studying education from a sociological perspective highlights the fact that the interaction between society and education is not mutually exclusive and contradictory. Education helps people in society to develop their abilities to the best possible way and use them appropriately to improve their earning capacities and living capabilities from time to time. At the same time, education also tends to fall under the influence of shared experiences and outcomes of people in groups. Sociologists, in particular, see in it an opportunity to mobilise the hitherto less developed societies and take them towards progress with a thrust on justice and equality. Acquisition of economic assets, wealth and well being is expected to be the outcome of education where people tend to overcome many shortfalls bringing out, in the process, their fullest potential and talent.

However, it is also true that not always does education result in such positive outcomes as progress, equality and sustainable development. While the tenets of education could be the same to all in a society, unequal access to educational opportunities and outcomes of education can result in unequal reproduction of knowledge and socio-economic power obtained through such knowledge.

Social Reproduction of Education

In a structurally unequal society like India, access to, and use of education is socially conditioned by a number of factors, the chief among them being social stratification based on caste that distinguished between one social group as hierarchically superior or inferior to another. Using birth as a determinant of status, people were grouped into water tight compartments. It is this situation that has been described by sociologists (Srinivas 1966) as a ‘closed system’. Access to education was traditionally, the monopoly of only a few groups placed at the higher echelons while those at the bottom of the ladder suffered continuous deprivation and exclusion. The ‘political arithmetic theory of sociology of education’ stresses upon understanding how ‘school structures wielded much power and influence in the structure of class, gender, ethnic, temporal and spatial inequalities (Halsey et al 1980). Based on the output of field research, the political arithmetic theory led to further specialisations like Rational Choice Theory and Cultural Reproduction Theory and further paved the way for a New Sociology of Education in the seventies, which insisted upon the use of more and more qualitative analyses in this direction.

The structural functionalist approach saw in education a ray of hope which as a social institution strives to keep society healthy and progressive. Its other roles fall in the realm of socialisation and preparing citizens to take on roles for the efficient functioning of the social system. But conflict theory looks at the situation as one characterised by competing groups with varying goals, aspirations, demands and means of achieving them. Terms like exploitation, oppression, marginalisation and alienation are keys in understanding society from this perspective (conflict perspective). Factors such as ethnicity, class, gender, region, religion, language and political participation are essentially impacting the entry of children from different groups into educational institutions and also influence the outcome of such participation in formal learning.

Origin and Growth of the Concept of Social Reproduction of Education

It is believed that the concept ‘Social Reproduction of Education’ originated in discussions on social inequality propounded by Karl Marx in his work, emphasising upon structures and activities responsible for perpetuating social inequality and injustice across generations. Sociologists have also spoken about the types of capital that contribute to social reproduction. They are (a) Human Capital, (b) Cultural Capital, (c) Financial Capital and (d) Social Capital (Bourdieu 2003).

As the names clearly suggest different forms of capital reinforce each other. Human Capital is the network of human relationships necessary for social reproduction (of education and such other factors of development). It is influenced by Cultural Capital referring to the skill, talent and entrepreneurship qualities inherent in a person that actually support social reproduction of education. Financial Capital, basing itself on income and wealth of a person, in turn influences cultural capital. Lastly, Social Capital is the sum total of all the above that hones the ability of the educated person to use knowledge to achieve higher levels. If not altered by education, the system will be reproducing the stratified and hegemonic social layers that arrest development. Social reproduction is the process where the elements of inequality based on stratification flow down to the whole system and across generations. There is a constant conflict between forces that try to maintain the status quo (caste, class, gender etc) and the elements that advocate change or transformation (through education). In Bourdieu’s words, the former is the ‘structure’ and the latter, ‘agency’. Building his theoretical framework around what he calls the Habitus, the Field and the Cultural Capital, Bourdieu upholds that structures determine people’s choices to participate in the gains of development. The Habitus is not only comprised of traditionally ascribed structures (of caste, in the case of India), it is also based on achieved statuses like education. Traces of inequality in educational accomplishments were tested against the concepts of social capital in the famous ‘French Educational System’. Bourdieu explored the tension between the reproduction of knowledge based on traditional patterns vis-à-vis those that emerged from modern, innovative approaches. In the final stage, the cultural product of the dominant groups/classes comes to stay and reproduced socially in education. The argument by Bourdieu is that the practices of the dominant group get legitimised; the marginalised students are compelled to be alienated from the educational capital as they do not possess the required cultural capital (of the dominant group). Upon this, the situation requires adoption of the cultural capital alien to them by lower-class students, which is an oppressive step. Learning becomes a compulsive process of trying to know the hitherto unfamiliar contexts by shunning one’s own familiar experiences and practices and adopting those of the dominant groups. There is absence of any alternative method of accessing education or producing education because the ethos of the dominant determines the situation. Thus, the paradoxical situation is one where the lower classes are compelled to follow something that they do not respect but it is necessary for their success. In the process, they face a number of hurdles such as those relating to language (for better comprehension), learning abilities, and so on. In the long run, such students who are not able to cope with are naturally eliminated by the system.

Reproduction of Inequality through Education

We have seen above how education is perceived in democratic societies as a ‘key’ to ‘opportunities’. An inherent motive here is that ‘public education’ or policies of achieving ‘education for all’ aim at ensuring social equality in reaping the benefits of development through awareness, knowledge and continuous learning. However, in many societies, institutions of schooling and higher education have been treading on the wrong path. Due to inbuilt and inherent structural constraints that surround it, educational system, in India for example, has closed its doors to vulnerable sections and it is designed to cater to the interests of the dominant classes. It is unable to escape from reproduction of inequality. Conflict theorists argue that individual achievement in education is conditioned by social forces that go against it and often cause failures. Further, they also criticise the pattern of education – curriculum, syllabus, mode of teaching and learning etc – describing it as one designed by those in power representing their values and goals as against those of the subaltern populations. Institutions of learning – whether primary, middle, high school or beyond – generally operate in post-modern societies as mechanisms of social reproduction of social inequality as they ‘portray the ideals of the dominant classes’.

Thus, while what constitutes learning skills and knowledge is already determined by those in power, children from deprived background are compelled to learn against their own consciousness of ‘real interests’ and abandon their own cultural background. The ‘home’ offers the precondition or the institutional set up for the middle and upper classes with similar values operating in both places – the home and the school.

Summarily, then, the gist of Bourdieu ’s views on reproduction of social inequality through education rests upon the ‘endemic’ nature of class inequality (Lynch K and Lodge A 2002). He argued that there is intimate association between the two where class inequality through education is perpetuated with dominant value systems (Bourdieu 1996). As a result, different educational outcomes are the inevitable result of both cultural capital and Habitus playing a dominant role in social and educational reproduction, the primary institutions in society such as the family engage themselves in socialising children to prepare them to receive the transmitted social practices, codes and values of the new culture. Success is further invested in academic markets for social and cultural reproduction (Bourdieu 1993).

Beginning with the works of Durkheim and Weber, sociological studies have emphasised upon similarities and differences between cultural transmissions in families belonging to different social classes. The 1950s and 1960s heralded the wake up of series of studies in sociology of education to portray inequalities in school results influenced by social factors (Bernstein 1971). Marxist scholars/theorists shed light on the link between cultural reproduction process in the schools and increasing segregation of the blue collar and white collar workers. Rational Choice theorists took a slightly different path and argued that individuals make rational choices of economic and social benefits based on their own location in the social scale.

Contemporary Debates in Social Reproduction of Education

Contemporary research on the issue of Social Reproduction of Education reflects the continued and increased transmission of educational inequalities favouring the upper classes and widening the gap between them and the disadvantaged sections of the society in question. For example, one such case is that of students from European countries having better educational attainments as compared to those hailing from Latin American or African countries in many schools.

Given below are some of the factors that have a bearing on the role of education as a perpetrator of inequalities created by social and economic forces. An attempt is also made to identify the positive changes that education could bring about if an inclusive and proactive model is implemented.

Parental Roles

The overarching social, economic and cultural changes all around have demanded a different model of parental involvement in children’s education according to many researches undertaken in recent years (Brown 2000; 2003). This extends both inside and outside the school. But what matters most here is the growing balancing act between middle class parents with high economic resources and those with high cultural resources vis-à-vis the challenges faced by the working classes. In an unequal set up the battle for spoils is sharpened and creates a situation in which ‘what one group wins, another loses (Collins 1979).

Role of Globalisation

With the onset of the Reforms period – particularly the Structural Adjustment Polices (SAP) resulting in the three fold processes of Globalisation, Privatisation and Liberalisation – the world has been witnessing greater international interdependence and partnership with speedy restructuring processes – both economic and socio-political. The tendency to socially reproduce educational inequalities has only heightened due to the competitive market forces that characterise globalised societies. Parents and students alike are engaged in evolving new strategies to catch up with changing times and acquire a share for themselves in the benefits of higher education. An interesting fall out of this process is the continued oppression of those who cannot participate in this race for higher education and its resultant accomplishments and lifestyles. All countries, including India, have evolved such new strategies such as national and internationally oriented studies, travel abroad programmes, expansion of knowledge through the electronic media and command over foreign languages. Their elite and bourgeoisie (to use the Marxian word) are engaged in consolidation of power- social, economic and political – and resources ‘in relation to the middle classes’. Connections are established between one or more ‘prestigious educational institutions’ for garnering economic, cultural and social resources for advancement.

The next stage of classification is that of professionals who emerge from such social reproduction of education and resultant economic resources. Even from the middle classes a new elite group emerges in response to their skill and qualification to work as managers, entrepreneurs and professionals. Those who fail to achieve educational accomplishments from such national or international connections have to be content with such jobs as teachers, nurses and workers.

National Situations and Economic Changes

In the last 25 years, i.e., since the introduction of globalisation, a striking change in the national social horizon is the competition between social groups for economic benefits and social visibility. An important dimension of this process is the decline of the welfare state and gradual rise of the market. Bourdieu described these losing communities as the ‘new poor’ who suffer from ‘poverty of position’ as different from ‘poverty of condition’ (Bourdieu 1993) characterised by low status and socially degraded livelihoods. They are deprived of opportunities for rising to positions of managers using or adopting to new skills of capitalism such as flexibility, mobility, leadership and communication skills. Schools offering traditional education are in less demand as opposed to modern ones with an ‘instrumental approach’. In other words, the school (or educational institution) is perceived as one capable of offering skills and ‘habitus’ useful in all social situations and job requirements.

Changes in the School Infrastructure and Learning Skills/Aids

A number of changes have affected the way the school used to perform before, such as for instance the focus on ‘skills rather than subject matter ’; ‘on-going evaluation rather than examinations’; and ‘invisible pedagogy’. Obviously students from less resourceful families suffer from handicaps relating to lack of ‘cultural and information capital’ (Bernstein 1975). The emphasis on schooling at an early age for the child has resulted in longer stay outside homes and to cope with this situation; both the child and the parents have to make many compromises. Arranging for tutorials, planning useful activities for children’s leisure time and investing on expensive technological devices has placed strain on parenting. Dealing with children (and parents) having such aspirations and transferring suitable/appropriate skills to them as the new pedagogy demands has made the lives of many-traditional teachers really challenging and difficult. Parents from middle and lower classes (and castes in India) find it hard to cope-up with the new educational resources due to their poor cultural and financial capital.

Rural-Urban Contrasts

In the last few decades the factors determining social mobility have included exodus from rural areas to urban and stay in the latter as one of the trends towards achieving greater social mobility. The ‘living environment’ impacts education and schooling to a large extent proved by the changes in the urban populations of the world’s great cities and towns addressed as collective capital (Bourdieu 1980). Socialisation and neighbourhood, location and access to schooling, segregation due to cultural differences, rising market prices of housing and basic amenities – all these are relevant factors here.

Impact of Positive Discrimination Strategies

In most countries, today, there are practices of positive discrimination and segregation in the school set up caused by progressive educational policies. Comprehensive planning has directed education at the school level to develop the mental and physical personalities of children with several aids and exposures. In India, the government at the centre introduced sarva shiksha abhyan under the umbrella of which a number of school reforms have been instituted to ensure compulsory and quality education to all children in rural and urban areas. Providing mass meals on working days in the afternoon to all children is a popular programme in this context. The Right to Education Act provides the right to schooling in private educational institutions for children from lower socio-economic groups in the absence of which it is impossible for them to get admission into these schools owing to high costs of admission, fee, accessories etc. The policy here and in various other countries, intends to gear up a suitable environment for equality and access in school education. Positive discrimination does not stop here in India but extends to college and university education where communities from lower and vulnerable background obtain seats, considered to be a passport to government/private employment later. But many middle and upper class parents tend to have a negative attitude towards children drawn from vulnerable background sitting in the same class as their children – most often fearing bad company and ‘acquisition of bad habits’ (Gewirtz et al 1995). A scheme well-meant is running into rough weather because of the attitude of many private school managements opposed to the idea of non-capitation seats.

Choice of School

A critical factor in the context of schooling in the globalised and privatised economy is the ‘choice’ factor that individuals exercise while using resources. This trend has not left education out of its reach. Families or parents lacking in financial, cultural and social capital are forced not to choose the benefit but accept what comes their way. In the present context they are placed in a situation where they have to accept whichever school their economic and social standing could afford. As one’s economic resources increase, the choice of schools also widens. In theory, the poor households are given the freedom to choose the type of education which they desire to access, but in reality they have to struggle to gain the kind of support services that the advantaged groups have. Also, to obtain equal outcomes, parents have to strive to provide additional inputs such as tuitions and electronic devices. There are inclusive policies to encourage the out of school children, the not so intelligent students and those coming from vulnerable background with no proper access to nutritive food, clothing, basic amenities – all of which are also considered essential today in the grooming of a child to become a capable student. But the poor have very little space to make choices.

Decentralisation, Accountability and Transparency: Changes and Challenges to Teachers and Schools

The process of social reproduction of education, in the globalised era, is not restricted in its impact to only the parents and students; but it has engulfed the entire gamut of the system of education where even the teachers and the school management have risen to the occasion and call for better performance. Literature speaks of impact of this inequality on ‘professional involvement and organizational arrangements’ (Thrupp 1999). As a result, in highly challenging and heterogeneous schools, teachers try to be competitive but in schools with children from poor and illiterate parental background, they are forced to ‘over adapt’ to the abilities of the students, bring down the quality of learning, follow vernacular teaching methods and take on an ‘emotional & humanitarian’ approach rather than an ‘egalitarian’ ideal.

Competition among schools is another result of social reproduction of education owing to recent trends caused by globalisation and related processes. Schools are pressurised to respond to the call of market for capable graduates or highly educated children, the seeds of which are sown in the school. Here comes the tussle between well established schools with built up reputation over decades, vis-à-vis the newly established schools. The latter, in their eagerness to strive to become like the former, place severe restrictions on teachers and students, such as long working hours, new curriculum (to make the school attractive to parents to seek admission to their wards), extra-curricular activities (like physical education, sports, Karate, life skills, swimming, dance and fine arts), etc. To these may be also added the changes in or introduction of, school policies. In India, these include setting up of parents’ groups to oversee school functioning and management (School Development Monitoring Committee-SDMC), participate in decision-making, inspections, regulations etc. There is the additional advantage of such policies where the teachers and managers gain consciousness about the inequalities (caste, class, gender, physical (disabilities) and regional) and address them. The concept ‘School towards the Community’ has gained momentum under SSA in India. The community where the school is located is given the responsibility to look into the functioning of the school with the concepts of equity, justice and sustainability in view. Schools are striving to keep a ‘ good’ image and performing image by taking extra caution that students do not drop out. Those who do so for socio-economic and cultural reasons are brought back on a mandatory basis through a participatory approach by the fellow students, teachers and the community representatives (sahayoginis). Attendance is ensured through not only academic inputs such as books and uniforms but through financial support (scholarships) and programmes such as mid-day meal, supply of milk, proper infrastructure like benches, lights (ventilation), good black boards, regulation of cleanliness, good conduct, participation in sports and games and so on. Priority of girls over boys in voluntary visible labour, attention to girl children/students, their safety and security –are all part of the SSA program. Thus, educational institutions are undergoing both pedagogical and organisational changes. There are changes in teachers’ duties, school administration and organization. In the long or short run, this makes teachers neglect the interests of students from unequal groups and adopt a dispassionate approach to offer their services with less internal commitment and moral outlook.

The Indian Context

India made significant strides, after independence to make education accessible to all in the country, especially to the vast majority of its under-privileged sections. The immediate need was to lift or eradicate the barriers to education for the poor and the vulnerable sections of society and to provide equal access to quality and effective education. A new concept of education emerged ‘ from the long experience of educational planning and implementation along with continuous analysis of achievements ’ (Thakur 2004). The hard work of numerous Commissions, Committees and Conferences, besides quality research by academicians in this area finally gave the outcome in the form of what is known as the “New Education Policy” in 1986. The policy makers had realised that after a few decades of independence, India witnessed growing numbers of children seeking education – both primary and higher education; a large number of students began to ‘crowd’ the educational institutions leading to ‘a quantitative explosion’ (ibid). However, besides the numerical strength, these institutions also needed to offer relevant knowledge and to all citizens without allowing for any social exclusion. There were several differences in the school-going or eligible children, which forbade their education-seeking behavior due to socio-cultural and economic constraints. Rural and tribal background, caste, religion, region and gender are the chief blocks in this respect from which majority of Indian population suffered, for historical and social structural reasons. The third but related challenge or question that policy makers encountered, was to make education an effective instrument of converting the dreams of thousands of young girls and boys across the length and breadth of India, to achieve their objective of ‘better’ employment or employability that education was expected to offer. The effect of education on the distribution of income was clear. Hence, the Constitution also had embarked upon achieving ‘universal literacy’. The situation in the early seventies was alarming and pathetic: of the 59.3 million children in the age group of 6-11 years, nearly 80 per cent were no doubt enrolled; but they did not complete primary education and about 35 million dropped out before that level. Needless to emphasise that children who had dropped out were largely from vulnerable groups. Girls exceeded boys in this category of school drop outs for gender specific reasons. There was lack of vocational and technical training in rural and semi urban areas.

A number of programmes and policy actions followed: the New Education Policy, Adult Literacy Program, National Literacy Mission (NLM), Operation Blackboard, and so on aimed at emphasising equality in accessing education. The NLM, for example, strove to remove prejudices and complexes transmitted through caste and other traditional institutions. It also aimed at imparting functional literacy to the 15-35 years age group by the year 1990 and ‘an additional 50 million by 1995’ (ibid). Other issues relating to the result of social inequality, such as dropping out of school (especially by the girls) and compulsory education by 1995 were also addressed.

For the unavoidable out of school children (both for those who never went and those who dropped out) non-formal education was instituted through government and non-governmental agencies. The school infrastructure received a boost under the Operation Black Board programme. Besides this, the programme aimed at bringing about discipline, work culture and attitude building among children through their teachers. To further strengthen the gender dimension of education and literacy, women’s development was added as a component in all programmes and policies. As girls are more prone to forcibly drop out of school, special attention was given to their needs. Likewise, the Navodaya schools came into existence to take care of providing open avenues for education, particularly in rural and tribal pockets of the state and outside it. Vocalisation of education, Open Universities and Reforms in Examination etc were also the main goals of the emerging educational policies.

Scholars have identified twin roles for education. The first views education as a ‘tool for social domination and control’ and the other views education as a ‘liberating force and correlate of social justice’ (Mooji & Majumdar 2011). We have discussed above the contributions of several authors to the debate on cultural and ideological domination role of education to perpetuate or reproduce unequal social order and access to education (Apple, Bourdieu, Passerson, Bowles and Gintis, Illich, Kumar and Willis). Illich (1970), for example, argued that the discipline enforced in schools force the children to forget and lose creativity, and develop inabilities to think and act independently. Apple (2000) and Kumar (1991) questioned ‘whose knowledge is of most worth?’ (Mooji 2011). The rules of learning are so strict and hard that often they are accomplished by children from elite and upper caste households than those from poor and vulnerable backgrounds (Bourdieu and Passeron 1977). It is thus important to discuss both the positive and negative impacts of the system of education while analysing a subject such as social reproduction of education.

Education as a Positive Force

There are studies which have said the opposite of the above. Nussbaum (2005, 2008) and Sen (1999) described it ‘human capability’. Knowledge and academic skills were tools of social mobility in the modern world. All other aspects of human resource development like access to health, nutrition, cleanliness, and public participation and decision-making are also influenced by education. Hence, these social scientists stressed upon the extension of education to all in a society, irrespective of caste, class, gender, region, religion and other differences among people. Sen saw education as a force liberating people from disabilities and taking them towards development as a human right.

In the context of India, the impact of governmental efforts to strengthen the educational base of the rural and tribal homes is dependent upon the type of management of the schools. Medium of instruction, financial outlays, resources and facilities in their command, access to the school etc. are significant parameters to assess the performance of the school in developing the personalities of its students. The efforts of the government and others (community-based organisations and civil societygroups) in the last 3-4 decades in India have made a dent on the reproduction of unequal social representation of children in education. Protective discrimination policies (reservation system) has contributed to limiting the barrier of caste-based oppression and marginalisation of communities which were at the bottom of the social hierarchy from accessing education as an instrument for change and social mobility. The post 1970s situation is particularly interesting in this context. Integrated social inclusion programmes such as the Sarva Shiksha Abhyan and others have led to large scale coverage of children in both pushing them to schools and for ensuring that they remain there, irrespective of gender, caste, class and regional differences in traditional access, values and authority. While it is an improvement over the earlier unequal social reproduction of education and development, the progressive policies and strict implementation over the decades following the 1990s, in particular, have certainly diminished the forces of social and educational exclusion.

But at the same time, education is continued to be used as a tool in the reproduction of inequality due to its cost, ownership and capabilities of children (and their parents) to avail of the benefits offered under programmes and policies. It has fallen often under ‘myriad of forces of power and hierarchy that define the social context and content of education ’ (ibid). Therefore, there is continued social reproduction of social inequality through education; but it is also true that education has liberated many with built up capabilities and exposure to opportunities.

Considering all aspects of the school and its surroundings, education also refers to the rights of children towards survival, protection, development and even the participation of the community in its management. Thus the focus is on such learning, which strengthens the capacities of children to act progressively on their own behalf through the acquisition of relevant knowledge, useful skills and appropriate attitudes; and which creates for children, and helps them in turn to create for themselves and others, places of safety, security and healthy interaction (Bernard, 1999).

The responsibility of providing basic education to all is firmly written in the Law of nearly most countries. National constitutions often mandated free and universal primary education, national and state legislatures have enacted laws to govern the provision of basic education, and governments and local administrations adopted regulations to implement these laws.

Improving educational effectiveness is defined as increasing the number of primary schools whose students master the core knowledge and skills of the curriculum. Although poor-quality education exists at all levels, improvement is urged at the primary level, where children develop their basic attitudes and approaches to learning. Improving the quality of education for students in primary schools is a prerequisite for developing the human resource base required to meet the changing technology demands of the 21st century.

Review and Discussion

The above discussion focusing on the meaning, definition and nature of the concept of social reproduction of education sheds light on the role of education in transforming vulnerable individuals into ‘capable, empowered citizens’. Education is addressed by scholars as both a facilitating tool for achieving social and economic mobility as well as an oppressive context where traditional hegemonic forces hinder an individual’s participation in education as one’s human right and the strategy for development. Rural areas in particular are more vulnerable to the latter threat, but the large number of private schools in the urban areas is no less significant for our analysis of how education contributes to social and economic inequality.

India’s economic growth in recent years, following globalisation, is striking, in general but is it accompanied by a social face with educational indicators. The paradoxical situations are striking: the country has succeeded in achieving improved literacy rates, but it is still the home for a large number of out of school children and working children. Inequality in school access is relatively high for higher levels like secondary and high schools. Its BIMARU states (Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh) suffer the brunt of this deprivation along with the states of Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh.

There was great hope invested in the role of the community in improving schooling of children from all respects. But in reality, the rural areas have become centres of political activities and the local organisations like the women’s Self-Help groups, the School Development Monitoring Committee (SDMC) and the Panchayat Raj Institutions have not been successful in bringing the required transformation. Powerful vested interests based on caste, class and political agendas are operating at the grassroots level and have come in the way of introducing radical measures in this direction. Thus, socially reproduced inequalities are continuously operating against the governmental initiatives, thereby making them serious challenges to achieve the targeted futu

References

1.      Apple, Michael W (2000): Official Knowledge, London: Routledge.

2.      Bourdieu, P (1990): Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture, London: Sage Publications.

3.       ——- “—– (1993): The State Nobility: Elite Schools in the Field of Power, Oxford, Polity.

4.      ———— “— (1996): Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction in Knowledge, Education and Cultural Change, London, Routledge.

5.      Brown, P (2000): Globalisation of Positional Competition, Sociology, 34 (4).

6.      ——–“—– (2003): The Opportunity Trap: education and employment in a global economy, European Educational Research Journal, 2(1).

7.      Bernstein, B (1971 & 1975): Class, Codes and Control, Volume 1 & 3, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.

8.       Bowles, S and Gintis H (1976): Schooling in Capitalist America: Educational Reform and the

Contradiction of Economic Life, New York: Basic Books.

9.      Collins, R (1979): The Credential Society: A Historical Sociology of Education, New York: Academic Press

10.  Coleman, J S (1988): Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital, American Journal of Sociology, 94.

11.  —— “——– (1966): Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington: US Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

12.  Gewirtz, S, Ball, S & Bowe, R (1995): Markets, Choice and Equity in Education, Buckingham, Open University Press.

13.  Government of India (n.d.): Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Framework, http://www.ssa.tn.nic.in/docu/SSA_Framesork,pdf

14.  Halsey, A H, Health, A & Ridge, J (1980): Origin and Destinies, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

15.  Health, A (2000): The Political Arithmetic Tradition in the Sociology of Education, Oxford Review of Education 26 (3-4).

16.  Illich, Ivan (1970): Deschooling Society, New York, Harper and Row.

17.   Kumar, Krishna (1991): The Political Agenda of Education, New Delhi: Sage Publications

18.  Lynch K and Lodge A 2002 Equality and Power in Schools: Redistribution, Recognition and Representation, London

19.  Majumdar, Manabi and Jos Mooji (2011): Education and Inequality in India, A Classroom View, London Routledge.

20.   Marx, Karl (1967): Capital: A Critique of Political Economy: Vol I, The Process of Capitalist Production: New York, International Publishers

21. Moore, Wilbert E (1963): Social Change, Foundations of Modern Sociology Series, Englewood Cliffs, N J: Prentice Hall Inc., pp 120

22. Mooji, Jos and Manabi Majumdar (2011): Primary Education in India: Empowerment of the Marginalised or the Reproduction of Social Inequalities? Paper presented in the conference of the Human Development and Capability Association ‘Innovation, Development and Human Capabilities; September 5-8, The Hague, Netherlands

23. Nussbaum, Martha C (2008): ‘Education for Profit, Education for Freedom’, Special Lecture 1, Institute of Development Studies, Kolkata, March

24. Ottaway, A K C (1968): Durkheim on Education, British Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.16, No.1, February.

25. Schofield, K (1999): The Purposes of Education, Queensland State Education, 2010.

26. Sen, Amartya (1999): Development as Freedom, Oxford: OU

27.—— “ —– (2009): Primary Education in West Bengal: Changes and Challenges, Pratichi (India) Trust, Kolkata

28. Shavit, Yossi, Meir Yaish & Eyal Bar-Haim (ed.) (1993): Persistent Inequality: Changing Educational Attainment in Thirteen Countries, Boulder, Westview Press

29. Shiva Kumar, A K, et al (2009): ‘Education For All’ is the Policy, but What is the Reality?’ Frontline, 26 (6), March.

30. Srinivas, M N (1966): Social Change in Modern India, OUPO, Delhi

31. Subramanian, Ramya (2006): ‘Education exclusion and the developmental State’, in Radhika Chopra and Patricia Jeffrey (eds) (in collaboration with Helmut Reifeld), Educational Regimes in Contemporary India New Delhi: Sage.

32. Tilak, B G (1987): Economics of Inequality in Education in India, New Delhi, Sage

33. Thakur, Devendra and D N Thakur (ed) (2004): New Education Policy, Studies in Education Policy, Deep & Deep Publications Pvt Ltd., New Delhi.

34. Thrupp, M (1999): Schools Making a Difference: let’s be realistic, Buckingham: Open University Press.Vallet, Louis-Andre (2004): The Dynamics of Inequality of Educational Opportunity in France: Change in the Association between Social Background and Education in Thirteen Five Year Birth Cohorts (1908-1972), Paper presented at the meeting of ISA Research Committee on Social Stratification and Mobility, Neuchatel.Willis, Paul (1977): Learning to Labour: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs, Farnborough: Saxon House.