We know that myths die hard. And sociologist, hunter myths as Norbert Elias said, will have the beautiful screen of bullets and arrows, or even explode in a bazooka, they will continue again and again to haunt the public debate. Le Monde published today u No article on the latest results Pisa : Marronnière lamentations about the poor performance of French students. And obviously, this inter-title: "The school no longer plays its role of social mobility".
This famous social ladder ... Do we still remember that Reproduction Pierre Bourdieu and Jean-Claude Passeron in 1970? The Heirs the same duo 1964? And so the fact that this famous social mobility has actually never worked? It would be hard to know what period relates this "golden age" of a school for the most glorious and the most deserving student workers to rise to the rank of the elite.
But the recurrence of this reference is perhaps more interesting what it reveals of the French conception of the role accorded to the school. Because ultimately it is the latter that we expect the famous social elevation (Because of social mobility is not only talking about the rise). Without doubt it has led the tremendous growth of the lives of our war boom also mystified when students become students got on the labor market conditions of employment and pay well above those of their parents.
Exactly, everything is said. This "social elevator" was collective, so that we now believe to be essentially personal: it has not been to the elevation of the best but that of many. And it did not rely only on school but also on conditions Economic favorable labor market. The conjunction between the school on one side, and the labor market of the other that allowed the "rise". No single school.
But in the recurrent use of the term "social mobility", it refers only to the role of the school, and only the "elevations" individual and not a collective improvement. From it we expect to improve the living conditions of students. This allows to leave aside not only the issue of employment and unemployment but also that of the general improvement of living conditions and work.
This is particularly remarkable given the fact that PISA does not measure absolutely no social mobility. What she reveals, is the effect of social background on student achievement in tests on some basic skills in reading, mathematics, science. This is quite important, but it says nothing about the inequalities in school careers and even less in terms of social trajectories of students. It is quite possible that students with good results in such tests are, more or less short term, excluded from the French school system: it is sufficient For example, they do not continue in the preparatory classes or courses of elites. Which is entirely possible if, for example, family environment encourages them to do much because their parents do not perceive the usefulness of such studies do not control or codes that allow access.
And even if they come up in these chains famous elite, nothing says they know for all educational pathways equivalent to those best equipped familialle better than them. For proof, one reads this passage a recent article in Proceedings of the Social Science Research on students from the working classes in business schools:
Otherwise, even when it opens a little in quantitative terms - as would like for example the slogan of "30% of equity in high schools" - the school system does not ensure social mobility of individuals. The distinction and the reproduction of elites rely on other agencies - job interviews, informal sociability, etc.. - And other signs and codes - investment-school, ways of being, or, to put it better, the habit - which is rarely put to question.
So why the metaphor of the social ladder, with all that it helps to conceal, she remains so powerful? One might think that precisely because it can hide all this, but take the risk of a conspiracy. One might also think of a simple habit, reproducing and reinforcing the gradually as it is reused, some piece of journalistic and political culture. I tend to think that the origin is more general: it is the result of a long training to a thinking individual, which has its origin in the operation of the school, which, year after year , continues to proclaim to those who pass through his hands the ideology of the gift which was already criticized by Bourdieu and Passeron. The social ladder is maintained because it is a metaphor consistent with the way we always represent the paths of students: those individuals whose school must deliver the hidden qualities and talents. This is perhaps where we should begin to question the justice of the school.
This famous social ladder ... Do we still remember that Reproduction Pierre Bourdieu and Jean-Claude Passeron in 1970? The Heirs the same duo 1964? And so the fact that this famous social mobility has actually never worked? It would be hard to know what period relates this "golden age" of a school for the most glorious and the most deserving student workers to rise to the rank of the elite.
But the recurrence of this reference is perhaps more interesting what it reveals of the French conception of the role accorded to the school. Because ultimately it is the latter that we expect the famous social elevation (Because of social mobility is not only talking about the rise). Without doubt it has led the tremendous growth of the lives of our war boom also mystified when students become students got on the labor market conditions of employment and pay well above those of their parents.
Exactly, everything is said. This "social elevator" was collective, so that we now believe to be essentially personal: it has not been to the elevation of the best but that of many. And it did not rely only on school but also on conditions Economic favorable labor market. The conjunction between the school on one side, and the labor market of the other that allowed the "rise". No single school.
But in the recurrent use of the term "social mobility", it refers only to the role of the school, and only the "elevations" individual and not a collective improvement. From it we expect to improve the living conditions of students. This allows to leave aside not only the issue of employment and unemployment but also that of the general improvement of living conditions and work.
This is particularly remarkable given the fact that PISA does not measure absolutely no social mobility. What she reveals, is the effect of social background on student achievement in tests on some basic skills in reading, mathematics, science. This is quite important, but it says nothing about the inequalities in school careers and even less in terms of social trajectories of students. It is quite possible that students with good results in such tests are, more or less short term, excluded from the French school system: it is sufficient For example, they do not continue in the preparatory classes or courses of elites. Which is entirely possible if, for example, family environment encourages them to do much because their parents do not perceive the usefulness of such studies do not control or codes that allow access.
And even if they come up in these chains famous elite, nothing says they know for all educational pathways equivalent to those best equipped familialle better than them. For proof, one reads this passage a recent article in Proceedings of the Social Science Research on students from the working classes in business schools:
HEC and ESSEC have rates employability close to 100% six months after leaving school. If two-thirds of employees are recruited in the consulting and finance followed by far by marketing and sales positions are far from equivalent [for students receiving a scholarship] in terms of prestige, pay and power. [...]
Indeed, by their family socialization, a majority of students have a perception relatively clear [of school careers to have] and can play when they enter school in the strategy of "curriculum vitae", the meaning of investment allows them to choose courses, internships and associative functions socially viable and consistent with their professional goals, a quality highly valued in the recruitment process.
Instead, students from fractions dominated social space has a partial representation of the universe of possibilities and tend to underestimate the return on investment as well as extracurricular informelle4 sociability in the functioning of the labor market. Consequently, their education takes a character seen as a tentative negative signal by the recruiters and, upstream, by juries to assign students in the "major" (HEC), "Chairs" and "channels" dedicated to ESSEC, during interviews motivation. Hence, it seems that even today "career success is more closely linked to social background as an indicator of educational capital as the rank of leaving school" (Pierre Bourdieu).
Otherwise, even when it opens a little in quantitative terms - as would like for example the slogan of "30% of equity in high schools" - the school system does not ensure social mobility of individuals. The distinction and the reproduction of elites rely on other agencies - job interviews, informal sociability, etc.. - And other signs and codes - investment-school, ways of being, or, to put it better, the habit - which is rarely put to question.
So why the metaphor of the social ladder, with all that it helps to conceal, she remains so powerful? One might think that precisely because it can hide all this, but take the risk of a conspiracy. One might also think of a simple habit, reproducing and reinforcing the gradually as it is reused, some piece of journalistic and political culture. I tend to think that the origin is more general: it is the result of a long training to a thinking individual, which has its origin in the operation of the school, which, year after year , continues to proclaim to those who pass through his hands the ideology of the gift which was already criticized by Bourdieu and Passeron. The social ladder is maintained because it is a metaphor consistent with the way we always represent the paths of students: those individuals whose school must deliver the hidden qualities and talents. This is perhaps where we should begin to question the justice of the school.
0 comments:
Post a Comment