**2. Theories of education inequality reproduction**

A large number of different theories try to explain the reproduction of education from one generation to another. According to one well-known opinion that can also be identified within the scholarly discourse, the empirically observed correlation between the education of parents and their children is primarily determined by inherited genetic dispositions, or in other words, education reproduction follows the genetic transfer of intelligence and other personality traits between generations (Herrnstein, 1973; Herrnstein & Murray, 1994; Jensen, 1972).

While genetic factors clearly play an important role, the fact that children's education track and success are partially, perhaps even primarily, determined by a vast array of social and

<sup>3</sup> An effect equal to 1 indicated the growth of standard deviation by 1. Effects above 0.8 were considered strong and apparent.

<sup>4</sup> See Veselý & Smith (2008) for discussion of the concept of mechanism in social sciences, and particularly in the study of social stratification.

208 Sociological Landscape – Theories, Realities and Trends

means of meta-analysis. For example, Hattie (1993, 2003) reviewed thousands of studies to analyze the influence of more than 30 factors on educational achievement. He ranked those factors by strength, type and percentage of variance explained. He reached an interesting conclusion: about 50% of variance was explained by student-related factors, about 5-10% by parent-related factors, 5-10% by school-related factors and another 5-10% by factors related to peers. The remaining variance, as much as about 30%, was attributed to teachers. Teacher-student feedback was considered the strongest single factor (its effect equaled to 1.133). In contrast, making the student repeat a grade was the strongest single negative

Nevertheless, research effort cannot stop at determining the approximate effect of the different factors behind educational achievement. This is because most factors are not isolated, and instead, they interact with and often determine one another. For example, individual educational aspiration, one of the main empirically identified factors behind one's choice of education track, is itself influenced by other factors like parents' education and socio-economic status. Thus, if we aim to *explain* the process of inequality reproduction,

Given the large number of factors behind educational achievement and the nearly indefinite number of combinations thereof, a great many different theories of education inequality reproduction have been formulated. A brief review of education sociology literature reveals that researchers have formulated a very broad spectrum of alternative theories of education inequality. While some of those theories are mutually exclusive, most are rather complementary to one another, i.e. the fact that one theory is valid does not preclude the

In this chapter, we will focus on theories which both (a) deal with the role of school and the education system and (b) have a direct relationship with education policy and the potential ways of addressing education inequalities (we will also focus on the empirical verifications of those theories). Our focus is also based on the fact that those theories have not received as

A large number of different theories try to explain the reproduction of education from one generation to another. According to one well-known opinion that can also be identified within the scholarly discourse, the empirically observed correlation between the education of parents and their children is primarily determined by inherited genetic dispositions, or in other words, education reproduction follows the genetic transfer of intelligence and other personality traits between generations (Herrnstein, 1973; Herrnstein & Murray, 1994; Jensen,

While genetic factors clearly play an important role, the fact that children's education track and success are partially, perhaps even primarily, determined by a vast array of social and

3 An effect equal to 1 indicated the growth of standard deviation by 1. Effects above 0.8 were considered

4 See Veselý & Smith (2008) for discussion of the concept of mechanism in social sciences, and

much attention as others (e.g., the socialization theory) in scholarly discourse.

we must formulate the *mechanisms* behind such reproduction4.

**2. Theories of education inequality reproduction** 

factor of academic achievement.

validity of another theory.

1972).

strong and apparent.

particularly in the study of social stratification.

economic factors seems evidence-based and undisputed (Pfeffer, 2008: 543)5. However, it is subject of argument what specific social and economic factors cause the reproduction. Some theories (e.g., Sewell & Shah, 1967) look for the explanation in individual education aspirations that are formed by one's significant others, including family and close friends, throughout socialization. Other theories (e.g., Bourdieu, 2004; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977) find the main cause in the so-called cultural capital and the fact that children from lower social strata lack some of the knowledge and competencies schools evaluate but do not provide. Further authors (e.g., Boudon, 1974) identify the main cause in the insufficient economic resources of lower education families. Another stream of theories (e.g., Gamoran, 1987; Oakes, 2005) approach the issue from a completely different perspective and try to demonstrate that inequality reproduction is built in the education system's organization.

Given the diversity of theories of education inequality reproduction, it is hardly surprising that some authors have attempted to systematize those theories by creating typologies thereof. Based on a classic article by Kerckhoff (1976), two fundamental theory approaches have often been distinguished: the socialization model and the allocation model. While the socialization model represented a dominant theoretical perspective in the mid-1970s, now both approaches are considered equally legitimate and complementary today.

Kerckhoff identified the "**socialization model**" in the so-called Wisconsin model (Sewell & Shah, 1967; Sewell et al., 1969). The key factor consists of adolescents' education aspirations that are formed by the family and significant others, including friends and peer groups, during socialization. This model focuses on individual-level education reproduction and builds on the implicit assumption that the sources of one's educational attainment and status lie in the individual—his or her abilities, ambitions and aspirations.

While Kerckhoff (1976) admitted that the socialization model was important and both theoretically and empirically justified, he inferred that it was only concerned with one side of the coin. He argued that the approach he called "**allocation model**" had to be added to our explanation. The allocation model holds that the individual is strongly influenced – or even determined – by social institutions; what he or she achieves depends on what those institutions allow. The attainment of a certain level of education or status is subject to structural constraints, selective criteria applied in the education system, and barriers individuals cannot influence.

As Kerckhoff (1976) argued, few social scientists would identify exclusively with either the socialization or the allocation model. Both models are complementary, rather than exclusive. For example, one's life plans and education aspirations are strongly determined by the broader social context and the level of education system stratification. On the other hand, the mere existence of institutional constraints cannot fully explain how inequalities are reproduced. Democratic societies cannot tolerate open discrimination of any particular group, and therefore, any systematic disadvantaging of certain groups has to take place through latent, often social-psychological processes.

<sup>5</sup> In this chapter we focus upon social and economic factors causing the reproduction of inequalities. Because of space limitation, the discussion of genetic factors is beyond the scope of this chapter (see e.g. Fraser 1995; Jacoby & Glauberman 1995).

the ways inequalities are determined by the educational system's overall design and management. Second, we will deal with school- and class-level practices. But we will have to start by defining two key terms used in the following: external and internal

Some of the most contested issues of education policy lie in the following questions: How should we organize education and how should we divide students between schools and classes? Some people believe that students should be grouped based on their abilities (or other characteristics such as interest or motivation) as soon as possible. According to others, such grouping at lower levels of education cannot be justified. English writing scholars usually refer to the sorting of students into separate schools and classes as *tracking.* Some other terms are also used for the same phenomenon (see below). Because a relatively big terminological chaos exists in this area, we will first attempt to clarify the basic English

The word **tracking** is probably the most usual term in relevant English scholarly literature. Table 1 outlines the definitions of tracking by some recent scholarly dictionaries as well as the key authorities in the field (Gamoran, Hallinan, Oakes, Slavin). The Table 1 makes it clear that the perspectives of most authors are relatively similar. One might extract the following from their definitions of tracking: "Tracking is the sorting of students into separately educated groups with different curricula and different education programs. Such

Gamoran (1992a)

Hallinan (1994)

Oakes (2005)

Dietrich (2008)

Ellison (2008)

Yang (2009)

Kelly & Covay (2008)

sorting may occur at the level of the education system or individual classes".

**Definition of tracking Source** 

Broad, programmatic divisions that separate students for all

can be assigned in groups to various kinds of classes.

instructional groups on the basis of ability

The term tracking refers to the practice of assigning students to

Process whereby students are divided into categories so that they

Educational tracking refers to the placement of students into different kinds of educational programs according to a defined criterion of similarity or dissimilarity, such as interest, ability, or

Tracking in schools involves differentiating the curriculum and organizing students for instruction based on perceived academic

Tracking refers to the practice of grouping students according to achievement levels, either between or within classrooms, for the

Tracking is an instructional management practice in which students are assessed on achievement or intelligence and then assigned to differentiated curricula to match their abilities

Table 1. Definitions of tracking in English literature

**3. External and internal differentiation: A terminological note** 

differentiation.

terms related to tracking.

subjects

achievement

ability levels.

purposes of instruction.

Thus, while Kerckhoff (1976) called for a synthesis of both models, he personally became an important proponent of the allocation model. His work was strongly influenced by the idea that education institutions are a kind of societal "sorting machine" (Spring, 1976). According to this idea, it was one of the primary goals of the educational system to sort students into groups, creating a hierarchy based on educational attainment and formalizing it through established education certificates.

While the idea of sorting machine itself is rather trivial, Kerckhoff went on and placed it in a comparative perspective. He noticed the fact that entirely different systems of education certification, different ways of organizing education systems and different educational practices existed in different countries: "Not all 'sorting machines' work in the same way. Not only do they sort their students into different indigenous credential categories, but the ways in which these credentials are produced and affect adult outcomes also differ in important ways" (Kerckhoff, 2001: 4).

Thus, Kerckhoff witnessed the inception of large-scale comparative surveys about education system effects (Shavit & Blossfeld, 1993; Shavit & Müller, 1998) that contributed importantly to our understanding of the ways education institutions affect the reproduction of education inequalities. Shavit and Blossfeld (1993) demonstrated that while the strength of the relationship between educational attainment and social background is quite stable over time, some countries managed to weaken it (specifically, Sweden and The Netherlands). Thus, this kind of surveys shows us that while the reproduction of education inequalities is not automatic and may change over time, the phenomenon has a strongly long-term nature, resisting any attempts for change6.

This does not alter the fact that all education systems include a more-or-less covert mechanism of student selection and differentiation which effectively reproduces education inequalities. They do so in different ways and to different extents. On the other hand, there is no system everyone would agree on as a model of justice with an acceptable strength of relationship between school achievement and the socio-economic background of one's family (e.g., OECD, 2004a).

The following parts of this chapter will deal with the allocation model as it was defined and studied by Kerckhoff. More specifically, it will outline how education inequalities are influenced by the institutional and organizational design of educational systems and schools. While this is a vast topic, we will not describe the entire spectrum of perspectives upon the role of school in reproducing inequalities; we will rather focus on factors in the **process of student differentiation and selection,** which is most prone to education policy intervention. However, there is no doubt that other, much less obvious ways schools reproduce inequalities, exist beside organizational factors7.

For the purpose of clarity, we will distinguish between two parts of the discussion about the role of education institutions in reproducing education inequalities. First, we will deal with

<sup>6</sup> Even the positive developments in Sweden and The Netherlands are mostly explained by the effects of an extensive welfare state, and in particular, general decline of social inequalities, rather than by education reforms themselves. This led some authors to conclude that education policy changes must be accompanied by changes in social policy as well (Walters, 2000, 2001).

<sup>7</sup> For example, P. Bourdieu's theory of cultural reproduction or P. Willis's (1977) theory of antischool culture.

Thus, while Kerckhoff (1976) called for a synthesis of both models, he personally became an important proponent of the allocation model. His work was strongly influenced by the idea that education institutions are a kind of societal "sorting machine" (Spring, 1976). According to this idea, it was one of the primary goals of the educational system to sort students into groups, creating a hierarchy based on educational attainment and formalizing it through

While the idea of sorting machine itself is rather trivial, Kerckhoff went on and placed it in a comparative perspective. He noticed the fact that entirely different systems of education certification, different ways of organizing education systems and different educational practices existed in different countries: "Not all 'sorting machines' work in the same way. Not only do they sort their students into different indigenous credential categories, but the ways in which these credentials are produced and affect adult outcomes also differ in

Thus, Kerckhoff witnessed the inception of large-scale comparative surveys about education system effects (Shavit & Blossfeld, 1993; Shavit & Müller, 1998) that contributed importantly to our understanding of the ways education institutions affect the reproduction of education inequalities. Shavit and Blossfeld (1993) demonstrated that while the strength of the relationship between educational attainment and social background is quite stable over time, some countries managed to weaken it (specifically, Sweden and The Netherlands). Thus, this kind of surveys shows us that while the reproduction of education inequalities is not automatic and may change over time, the phenomenon has a strongly long-term nature,

This does not alter the fact that all education systems include a more-or-less covert mechanism of student selection and differentiation which effectively reproduces education inequalities. They do so in different ways and to different extents. On the other hand, there is no system everyone would agree on as a model of justice with an acceptable strength of relationship between school achievement and the socio-economic background of one's

The following parts of this chapter will deal with the allocation model as it was defined and studied by Kerckhoff. More specifically, it will outline how education inequalities are influenced by the institutional and organizational design of educational systems and schools. While this is a vast topic, we will not describe the entire spectrum of perspectives upon the role of school in reproducing inequalities; we will rather focus on factors in the **process of student differentiation and selection,** which is most prone to education policy intervention. However, there is no doubt that other, much less obvious ways schools

For the purpose of clarity, we will distinguish between two parts of the discussion about the role of education institutions in reproducing education inequalities. First, we will deal with

6 Even the positive developments in Sweden and The Netherlands are mostly explained by the effects of an extensive welfare state, and in particular, general decline of social inequalities, rather than by education reforms themselves. This led some authors to conclude that education policy changes must be

7 For example, P. Bourdieu's theory of cultural reproduction or P. Willis's (1977) theory of antischool

established education certificates.

important ways" (Kerckhoff, 2001: 4).

resisting any attempts for change6.

reproduce inequalities, exist beside organizational factors7.

accompanied by changes in social policy as well (Walters, 2000, 2001).

family (e.g., OECD, 2004a).

culture.

the ways inequalities are determined by the educational system's overall design and management. Second, we will deal with school- and class-level practices. But we will have to start by defining two key terms used in the following: external and internal differentiation.
