| |
Response and Reflection
Ralph H. Turner. (1960). Sponsored and Contest Mobility and the School System, American Sociological Review 25(6), pp. 855-67.
This paper was a little easier to read and did not introduce too many
new terms. Perhaps it was easier to read because I have already read
three other papers related to the same topic. This article, also
antiquated (1960), uses two different social mobility theories to
account for many differences in the English and American education
systems: sponsored mobility and contest mobility, respectively.
The authors first describe the differences between the two theories.
Sponsored mobility referring to an individual being selected for
social status, while contest mobility suggests individuals can attain a
higher social status by having the motivation and ambition to do so.
These theories are then used to describe some of the differences
in both systems. The authors are careful: they suggest the
explanation by no means accounts for all the variability in the
systems, and sell this article as speculative and exploratory research.
While the paper does emphasize the principle of parsimony, this
oversimplification is flawed in that it assumes that both types cannot
exist in the same culture. I cannot speak intelligently about the
English system of education, but characteristics of both theories can
be observed in the American education system. While our
underlying culture does embrace a sense of social mobility in that
those that have the drive to achieve will, there are many places in our
society and education system where sponsored mobility is evident.
Just to provide a couple examples: we use IQ tests at an early
age to identify those students that are "gifted", and geographic
regions with individuals with high income go to public schools that are
of the upper echelon. This is undoubtedly a form of social
selection. However, this does not discredit the explanatory power
of the author's position. At minimum, the differences between these
theories help explain or bring light to problems in our society, and
more specifically, education system.
Being that I am American (or at least pretend and try to be), I am
biased in my attitudes about the sponsored mobility system.
I believe this is a dangerous system because 1) it assumes that
there is and should be a higher and controlling class in a society and
2) that an individual cannot or does not change over time. If
there is one thing that I have learned as an educator, not all
individuals learn as the same pace and not all individuals are willing
to learn at the same time in their life. Some students may have
been horrible middle or high school students, are excellent students in
college. This may be because of differences in development, lack
of motivation, or whatever. It does not mean that an individual
cannot achieve at a latter time in their life if given the opportunity.
I also have a moral objection with a standardized test being used
as a sorting tool at such a young age. This speaks to the
"consequential validity" of an instrument such as the eleven-plus.
The developer of this instrument (according to Wikipedia) did not
intend for it to be used as it was, and consequently, unintended
consequences ensued.
I agree with all the main points the author makes in attempting to
relate these theories to comparing and contrasting our education
systems. I previously commented on the authors first point of
difference (selection), but I think that his second point also deserves
some attention, where the author says the American education system
"emphasizes keeping everyone in the running until the final stages" as
a metaphor to sports and education. Interestingly, the author
brings up the point that most individuals believe we should spend more
time with our lower achieving students and less time with our higher
achieving students. This is the same flawed mentality associated
with the use of the FCAT in Florida. It assumes that everyone
should be competing at the same level. When is this ever the case
in the real-world? This is like suggesting a coach of a football
team should spend all of his time with his worst players so that all of
the players on his team can perform at the same level (and I don't even
like football). I think everyone should have an equal
opportunity, and those that are motivated to learn are the students we
should spend the time helping.
Having not previously read about these theories, I found this paper to
be interesting. I am not too familiar with the English system
aside from what I have read. This paper provided me a framework
to which I can use to discuss and learn more about the English system
and brought to light many important issues related to education. |