For my pre-proposal, I will focus on the influence of social class on the education of American children. I will be examining social class as determined by economic status, level of education completed, and occupation, and how its influence and the resources stemming from it determine how much education a child will pursue. Is it very important for one to go to a four-year university? What encourages pursuing a graduate degree? Is it necessary to complete high school? Is education pursued for professional reasons or out of a sense of obligation either to family or oneself?
Considering a recent focus in the media on the stratification of social classes in the United States, I think it is especially important for this issue to be re-examined more closely. I am curious to see how far and for whom the emphasis on an education beyond a high school diploma extends. Furthermore, I question whether or not it is only the lower classes that are without the resources that do not pursue advanced degrees. I am curious as to whether or not the upper class – those who should have unlimited resources – choose to pursue higher education. Is knowledge necessary to earn money, and is knowledge necessary if you already have money?
Discussion of social class is still a great taboo in the United States; the land of opportunity supposedly exists with a middle class demographic, or, as President George W. Bush stated at the Alfred E. Smith memorial dinner in October 2000, a nation of the “haves and have-mores.” This leads us to ask what determines social class and exactly what the demographic of the United States is.
According to 2004 statistics, 83.9% of the U.S. population has completed their education at least at a high school level. An additional 27% has a bachelor’s degree or higher. Compare this to the “42% of high school graduates who enter college or university” (Holloway, Fuller, et al, 1996). There is a very substantial gap between those who obtain an additional degree and those who do not.
Based on calculations related to the U.S. Census Bureau’s report on total household income, 45% of the population is currently earning $50,000 a year or more (this includes families and non-families). The mean of family income is $69,593, and for non-families $38,165.
Below is a table defining the social classes according to occupation and income as designed by D. Gilbert and J.A. Kahl in 1993*. Please note that education is not taken into consideration:
ClassOccupationsIncome
Upper Investors, heirs, top executives$750,000 +
Upper middleUniversity-trained professionals, managers$70,000 – 749,000
MiddleWhite-collar, lower level professionals, managers, skilled blue collar workers$40,000 – 69,999
WorkingSemiskilled blue collar and low level white collar$20,000 – 39,999
Working poorLaborers, service workers$13,000 – 19,000
Underclass‡Unemployed or erratically employed$0 – 12,999
*Table included in “Social Class Issues in Family Life Education” by Robert Hughes, Jr. and Maureen Perry-Jenkins. Family Relations, April 1996.
Based on this information, it can be generalized that the average individual in the United States falls into the category of working class. Consider this again with the earlier stated information that 27% of Americans have a bachelor’s degree or higher.
Theories on the effects of social class on the education one pursues vary to some degree, but the general consensus is that the resources made available to those of the middle and upper classes as well as the influence of more educated parents give children of the middle and upper classes a decided advantage when choosing an educational path.
Ronnelle Paulsen, in her in 1991 study of education, social class, and participation in collective action, found that:
education generates class effects in political socialization in three ways: (1) it reinforces the individual class socialization initiated in the home. (2) it is structured to treat class groups differently in the tracking process, and (3) it varies in the way communities address curricular emphases in their schools…feelings that one can accomplish what one sets out to do, is both nurtured and discouraged by the educational process, depending on the class position of the students.
This relates to the structures of school curricula: AP (advanced placement) and SAT prep classes for the college-bound students, vocational technology classes for those likely to pursue a trade after high school. These are decisions often made with the influence of guidance counselors, individuals designated to tell individual students what plans are and are not to settle on for their futures.
Paulsen analyzed data from a 1965-73 panel study conducted by M.K. Jennings and R.G. Niemi (“Generations and Politics” 1981) of students chosen from a national probability sample in 1965. 1,669 students completed the 1965 interview, 1,348 were re-interviewed. At the same time, 1,562 parents were interview, and 1,179 were re-interviewed. The two samples came from the same families.
The flaws, as I see them, in this study, would be the limited size of the sample and the gaps in time. It is difficult to draw national conclusions on the total 1,063 parent-child pairs collected for the study. It is also somewhat questionable that there is an eight year gap between when the interviews were conducted and when the results were published in 1981. Paulsen is then additional 10 years removed from the study when she was drawing her own conclusions. Though her initial arguments about class influence remain relevant, her focus on political action probably would have benefited from collecting her own more recent data.
Robert Hughes and Maureen Perry-Jenkins echo Paulsen in their 1996 study; it is not only the resources that impact students but also the attitudes of their parents that affect the decisions students make regarding their educations. According to Hughes and Perry-Jenkins’s study, working class parents are more likely to encourage their children to learn a trade and to go to work immediately out of school rather than encouraging them to pursue higher education. It is not the position of class that determines where a student goes with his or her education, but rather it is the impression made on the student by his or her environment.
For this reason, it is especially important that Hughes and Perry-Jenkins accounted for the dual-earner household and the increased role of the father in a child’s upbringing. The changed dynamic of the family is also changing the influences that children grow up with. The previous 1950s sitcom dynamic of the stay-at-home mom with the breadwinner father cannot be considered the norm.
This is also seen in the study done by Holloway, Fuller, et al (1990) comparing academic achievement in Japan and the United States is qualitative, but unreliable because of the limitations in its design. This qualitative study is advantageous in the respect that it focuses on the direct influence of the parents (and thus, indirectly, the traits of the social class of the parents are projected onto the children), but the sample sizes are so small and those focused on in the United States are limited to “67 white families,” which is hardly representative of the U.S. population. While the study includes families from a variety of economic backgrounds, failing to control for race skews the results. Additionally, while the study takes into consideration the education of both the mother and the father, only occupation of the father and not that of the mother is factored into the study. The occupation of the mother is as much a determining factor of her class (again harkening back to comments made in the study done by Hughes and Perry-Jenkins, 1996) as it is an influence on what the child may pursue.
A superior example for conducting similar research came recently from the Oxford Review of Education in the 2002 study by Gayle, Berridge, and Davies. Their quantitative study of youths in the United Kingdom used sample enumeration (which “provides a method of estimating the contribution of control variables towards ‘explaining’ the observed responses using a readily understood metric”) as a means of determining the likelihood that students would complete certain levels of education according to their backgrounds. Through a series of indexes, Gayle, Berridge, and Davies are able to organize their material and then reduce the results to only the significant data, making their complex system easier to follow.
The sheer complexity of the calculations of the study allowed for every control to be accounted for – from race and gender to the categorization of occupational classes. Whereas the model provided by Hughes and Perry-Jenkins factors occupation into social class (see above table), the model from the Oxford Review study looks at occupational class as a separate variable. Perhaps this can be attributed to the class-conscious nature of the English (I recommend the works of anthropologist Kate Fox for further reading on this subject), but dissecting class into further components provides further insight into the lives of children and the influences they are faced with. The outside perception of how a parent’s occupation is categorized will influence opinions of the position of the family and perhaps how the child is treated in school.
Before explaining the proposed methodology for this study, I think it worthwhile to reference a 1963 article written David E. Hernandez regarding the use of social class in education. Hernandez reminds us that social class is, in fact, a concept created as a research tool; that in defining classes we are looking for shared characteristics amongst people, but it is impossible to determine how individuals will act based solely on the characteristics they share with others. Hernandez mentioned the generality of education being aimed at the middle class and supporting middle class values, but then referred to his own findings that lower class parents of high school students were more involved with their children’s teachers than any other group (David E Hernandez, “The Roll of High School as Perceived and Communicated by Parents and Teachers,” 1962). How do we study how students are impacted by their social classes without making sweeping generalizations? Because it is impossible to determine what direction the children will take in the future, I would like to review the older surveys conducted by the National Longitudinal Study of Youth of adults who have since completed their educations. I would like to then compare the ideas of the subjects from when they were in their teens and see how their ideals compared with what course was actually taken. I plan to obtain this information by recalling previous studies through the NLSY and conducting follow-up surveys of the participants previously surveyed. The first round of surveys were conducted in 1979 when the participants were 14 – 22 years of age, and conducting a follow-up study at this time would find them between the ages of 41-49. At this time, it is reasonable to surmise that several participants will not only have completed their educations, but may also have families of their own and may be impressing their influences upon their own children. The NLSY also conducted a second study of 12-16 year-olds beginning in 1997, a more recent group whom recently had to make decisions regarding their educations.
For this project, I think it best to adopt the sampling design used by the National Longitudinal Study of Youth in its 1979 and 1986 studies. According to the NLYS79 User’s Guide 1979-2002*, the sampling frame was created through a “list of housing units in selected areas of the United States” (pg 17) and followed up by taking a random sample of these homes and visiting the household for a short interview. The process was repeated with records pulled from the Department of Defense as to include members of the military in the study (pg 17).
Through this process of random sampling, 155,000 people were surveyed, the information of which was used to identify all 14 -21- year-olds. This phase was completed during 1978. With the information obtained, all subjects between 14 and 21
were placed into sample groups, and the individuals were contacted and asked to participate in the first NLSY79 interview. With these individuals involved, three independent probability samples were designed. They are:
*Please note: the following information regarding the National Longitudinal Study of Youth and the methods used during that study have all been obtainted through the NLSY79 User’s Guide 1979-2002. Page numbers are cited within.
(1) a cross-sectional sample (6,111) designed to be representative of the noninstitutionalized civilian segment of young people living in the United States in 1979 and born January 1,1957, through December 31, 1964
(2) a set of supplemental samples (5,295) designed to oversample civilian Hispanic, black, and economically disadvantaged, non-Hispanic, non-black youth born in the same time period
(3) a military sample (1,280) designed to represent the population born January 1, 1957, through December 31, 1961, serving in the military as of September 30, 1978. The inclusion of the military sample allows comparative civilian/military analyses by ensuring more than the pro rata share of cohort members in the military (pg 17).
The study that began 1986 collected data on the children of the women who responded to the NLSY79. It is intended (“when weighted”) to represent all children born to women born between 1957 and 1964 (pg 17). The great advantage to working with the NLSY is the convenience when factoring in control groups. While the focus of this project is to establish the impact of social class on the level of education achieved, it is also important to take into consideration the affects of race and especially gender in relation to class. It would prove to be interesting to see if siblings of different genders were supported differently or have found substantially different levels of success; questions should be asked in the follow up regarding siblings of the subjects. “The NLS sample design, which selected every eligible person connected to the household, generated a representative sample of siblings and spouses living in the same household and satisfying the age restrictions stated above. However, NLSY79 samples do not contain nationally representative samples of siblings and spouses of all ages and living arrangements,” (pg 18). Because the NLSY studied sibling pairs, it offers an excellent model for the comparison of sibling pairs in my own study. Siblings offer a unique control as they are generally raised by the same parents and under the same conditions. Granted, changes in the economic situation of the family and their impacts on the children must be noted, as does a difference in gender.
The sampling of the ‘civilian’ population of the NLSY study was conducted through a multi-stage stratified area probability sample of dwelling units and group quarter units. A moderate degree of oversampling of dwelling units within sample listing segments was employed in order to increase the sample composition with respect to the targeted groups of the supplemental sample. Base year samples of Hispanics, blacks, and economically disadvantaged, non-blacks, non-Hispanics were selected from individuals identified in both the 102 PSU cross-sectional sample and the 100 PSU special purpose sample, though over sampling was kept to a minimum for the sake of sample efficiency (pg 19).
I think it an interesting side note to mention the Hawthorne effect was anticipated during the process of gathering information for classification. Because of this, the NORC survey interviewers were not informed of which groups would be included in subsequent interviews (pg 19). This is a worthwhile lead to follow.
For the purposes of this study, I am not necessarily suggesting the use of NORC interviewers (unless the funds are readily available), but merely following the design to conduct a third study. The objective of this study remains to evaluate the relationship between social class and how children from different backgrounds choose to pursue education. The idea behind this depends upon our full understanding of where our subjects are coming from socially and economically.
The process of conducting the follow up studies on the former participants of the NLSY will be simpler of the two parts of my intended study. While it must be accounted for that we will be unable to contact several of those interviewed in the 1979 and 1986 studies, if a large enough percentage of those participants can be reached, the follow up with still provide valid information. I believe that telephone interviews would be the best way to try to reach the former participants, for the sake of convenience for the interviewer and the interviewee. I anticipate the average time of a follow-up interview to be no more than 60 minutes. Depending on the size of the team working on the follow-up interviews, this process could be completed within six months.
The second portion of the study, the new study being conducted on teens now, is a bit more involved, but again, the NLSY has set a precedent. Following their lead, we can anticipate the initial survey of participants to take a year or less. The second phase, dividing the participants into three independent probability samples, would most likely take less time, though it must be factored in for the time taken to input the collected data.
Social class may very well be a determining factor on what level of education young adults intend to complete. However, social class cannot be determined by economic status alone. In order to fully understand what kind of impact social class has on the education of children, we must understand the roles that parents play in encouraging their children to pursue education, how the schools prepare students for further education, and question who is actively pursuing a further education and why. The best way to learn this, is to ask the children themselves.
Reference:
- Sources Banks, James A. Autumn, 1988. “Ethnicity, Class, Cognitive, and Motivational Styles: Research and Teaching Implications.” The Journal of Negro Education, 57(4). Beck, John M. February 1958. Education, Culture, and the Individual.” Review of Educational Research, 28(1), pg 54-66. Evans, Ronald. Autumn 1981. “The Last Obstacle to Equity in Education: Social Class.” Theory into Practice, 20(4), pg 269-272. Gayle, Vernon, Damon Berridge, and Richard Davies. 2002. “Young People’s Entry into Higher Education: qualifying influential factors.” Oxford Review of Education, 28(1). Hernandez, David E. March 1963. “Is the Concept of Social Class Being Misused in Education?” Journal of Educational Sociology, 36(7), pg 322-324. Holloway, Susan D., Bruce Fuller, Robert D. Hess, Hiroshi Azuma, Keiko Kashiwago, and Kathleen Gorman. May 1990. The Family’s Influence on Achievement in Japan and the United States.” Comparative Educational Review, 34(2). Hughes, Robert Jr. and Maureen Perry-Jenkins. April 1996. “Social Class Issues in Family Life Education.” Family Relations, 45(2), 175-182. National Longitudinal Study of Youth – 1979. Retrieved April 17, 2006 from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Website: www.bls.gov/nls/nlsy79.htm National Longitudinal Study of Youth – 1997. Retrieved April 17, 2006 from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Website: www.bls.gov/nls/nlsy97.htm NLSY79 User’s Guide. Retrieved April 18, 2006 from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Website: www.bls.gov/nls/79guide/2002/nls79g2.pdf Paulsen, Ronnelle. April 1991. “Education, Social Class, and Participation in Collective Action.” University of Texas at Austen, 64(2), pg 96-110. U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved April 7, 2006 from American FactFinder. Website: factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=ACS_200.?? Van Giel, Tyll. February 1974. “Does the Constitution Establish a Right to an Education?” The School Review, 82(2), pg 293-326. Winch, Robert F. April 1957. “An Investigation of the Distinctiveness of Social Classes.” American Sociological Review, 17(2), pg 250-251.
