Soc. 100 Lecture 19.C12

Education

1

Edit 3/31/02

Education

0. Introduction to Institutions

1. Some basic concepts in Education*

2. Education in the US "The Schooling Revolution *

3. Schooling and (in)Equality *

4. The Quality of Education, The Education Crisis in the US *

5 A Global Perspective, A Cross-cultural Education *

2

0. Introduction to Institutions

Institutions; established social patterns that perform necessary functions of society

INSTITUTION PRIMARY FUNCTION

Family Replace the population

Education Formal/informal socialization

Economic Distribution of goods and services

Government Social control

Religion Meaning

Institutions tend to get more defined (rationalization), and more in number with time, size and development

3

1. Some basic concepts in Education

• Definitions "schooling" vs. "Education"

Education; formal and informal transmission of knowledge and skills

Schooling; formal instruction in a classroom (K-grad)

• Training vs. Education

You train a dog you educate a human being Robert Hutchens

• American Values about Education - faith in education; key to success, solution to social problems and critical attack of the system - "A Nation at Risk"Why Johnny can't read, lack of geography knowledge, lack of basic math)

Don't let school get in the way of your education!4

2. Education in the US "The Schooling Revolution

Three Perspectives

(1). Schooling for Industrial Society--Functionalist explanation*

(2). Schooling for Capitalism --conflict explanation*

(3). Status Competition and Credentials--Weber*

The revolution----universal education now world wide goal 100 years ago-- few received even a primary education

By WW I primary school was compulsoryBetween WW I and II HS became compulsory

Today --compulsory k-12 --majority, 83%, obtain HS and many some college

--text graph page 445--

School was invented to meet needs of all in industrialized world

School was invented to meet capitalist needs for workers

School serves to establish status and prestige

5

(1). Schooling for Industrialization --Functionalist explanation

Education expanded to meet the demands of an increasingly complex industrialized society

Pre industrial societiesEducation-not very relevant

•Family (primary all areas)•religion (meaning)•school if existed offered a little help with reading and discipline

Industrial societiesEducation-opportunity to excel

Family (most important but)religion (meaning)school now increased functions subject instruction, socialization-work habits, civic

pride custody/control certification selectionWhy;

1. Nation had to develop national character-Americanization 2. Work shifted from home to factory- new skills and work habits also parents working and not at home for children 3. Move from rural to urban, old norms no longer applied6

(2). Schooling for Capitalism --conflict

Education is betrayal and deception, designed to meet capitalist elites needs for workers

Schools were simply factories that turned out workers

Industrialists were important in compulsory education movement

Expansion of secondary schools X changing production

Argues that school protects status quo reinforces class system (standardized tests, IQ tests) created illusion of equality of opportunity (entrance tests, and better schools etc. justify differential success)

Expansion of education created surplus of trained personnel thus employer’s power was increased to hire and fire.

7

(3). Status Competition and Credentials--WeberEducation functions to serve the drive for status, prestige,

and social esteem.

Much of school is "irrational" as far as structural functionalist theory

Much of what schools teach is irrelevant to capitalist goals andsome school content is subversive

Thus real purpose is belief that school is the route to status/success, school is the major source for credentials and“money in the bank” (chart p453--payoff for college attendance)

"Get a better job"

Do schools "pay off " ; Yes but not uniformly for all (different for M & F , Minorities and change over years) and upskilling jobs means college no longer a guarantee UMC

Chart bottom page 453 M& F8

3. Schooling and (in)Equality

(1) Academic Achievement and social class*

(2) Unequal Schooling*

(3) School desegregation Revisited*

(4) Tracking*

(5) Race Gender and Academic Achievement*

9

(1) Academic Achievement and social class text p454

• Higher SES X higher education achievement UC 2+ times as likely to attend college

UC 6 times as likely to graduate from college

UC 9 times as likely to obtain post graduate degree

• Academic credentials are not equal 15% college students attend elite private schools 85 % more life income then population at large

45% college students attend better state U and better private schools 50 % more life income then population at large

Rest (CSUB) college students attend public colleges Universities 0 % more life income then population at large

(Coleman and Rainwater 1978)

China broke SES X Ed decreased connection as result of The Cultural revolution10

2. Race Gender and Academic AchievementEducation is not the Equalizer of American beliefs

Differences in achievement scores by age 9Differences continue throughout HSMinority groups (except F) are less likely to seek or obtain higher

degree Highest drop out is Latino (30%+)

Minority status affects performance through (1) Socioeconomic depravation; poverty, quality of food, unhealthy environment, quality of medical care

(2) Physical and social isolation separates individuals from majority culture and exposes to failure more then majority children

(3) Results, groups and individuals are stigmatized/labeled with direct affect on performance as shown in studies and also see

Eye of The storm

(4) Gender is related to achievement but appears to be decreasing11

3a. Unequal SchoolingHome location NOT school makes the biggest difference

Popular belief "Better the school the better the education”

• 1954 Supreme Court decision based on this belief

• School financing based on property tax therefore valued property, higher SES of taxpayers more funding Recent attempts to equalize funding, only 2 (Kansas, and Vermont) have state as tax base for funding

• School choice -allows parents choice -Proponents see as improving education -Opponents; schools will just become more selective

• Magnet schools attempt to offer high quality, multi ethnic education--do they?

• “Gate” or honors classes serves to separate by SES

•? Do school dollars really determine the quality of education Coleman Report (mid 60s), Plowden Report, Jencks all see family, community, SES, summer as the major differences12

Private vs Public schools

• 1980 study shows private school students performed better

• Variations in performance at different levels for science and math, social studies

• Private school students more likely to not drop out, take college prep classes and to attend college

• Catholic schools have most success with minority students

• “Community” seen as big cause of difference especially for catholic schools

3b. Unequal Schooling

WHY; recent review of studies indicates that when selectivity of private schools is accounted for the differences between public and private schools disappears

13

4. School Resegregation1954 Brown vs Board of Education; decision that separate schools

could not be equal.

•Aimed at Southern states (dejure segregation) but proved most difficult in Northern states (defacto segregation)

•In major cities the school system has lost enrollment (white move to suburbs)

•Does integration reduce racial inequality--mixed findings with economic integration found to have an impact on minority achievement and goals but not necessarily improved race relations. Best results found with mixed group tasks resulting in improved performance by all (same as Eye of Storm)

14

5. TrackingTracking; assigning students to different classes and programs

based on perceived ability and interest differences has led to resegregation

•Advocates; allows students to proceed at their own pace and avoids embarrassment for lower performers.

•Protagonists; creates a stratification system undermining equality of education results in stigmatization/labeling. This separates by race, ethnicity and SES

•Indications are that in k-6 tracking by ability results in SES separation (check out “Gate” programs)

•HS tracking separates SES groups and ethnicity's into honors, college prep and traditional classes

•Some indication of affirmative Action with achieving blacks and females having slightly higher chance of tracking into better programs then equivalent white males

•Rigid tracking systems results in greater gaps in achievement•Classroom environment differs greatly in different tracks

15

(a) Student Achievement-- Declining*

(b) Academic Standards--Declining

(c) Learning Environments

(d) Illiterate? Who. US*

(e) School Reform: The Policy Debate*

(f) Beyond School

4. The Quality of Education, The Education Crisis in the US

Some HS see curriculum should be possible for all to do as opposed to challenging, Wide range of non-traditional programs, HS is shopping mall of choices. Dilutes quality.

Title Wave II, children of “baby boomers” have impacted many schools. And many facilities have been poorly maintained.

Alarming rate; US 158th on ordered list of literacy among nations

National Standards, School Choice, Teacher Credentials, Minority Students and Teachers, Affirmative Action

Disengaged students, schools need to be more engaging and students to more willing, reason is students see education as credential and not see importance of learning, parents role (authoritative) is important and peers are important (p472-473)16

• K-12 students– 1992 1/4 HS, 1/3 8th graders, 4/10 4th graders below level– US students only average compared to other developed

societies. May be related to selection of upper students by other countries and their more focused curriculum.

• College students– Why:wide range SES students attending college– Lowered academic standards and grade inflation– TV with an average of 21 hrs per week

(a) Student Achievement-- Declining

General decline on standardized tests k-12 and college students.

17

• 1/2 not able to write a letter about a billing error or calculate length of a bus trip from a schedule, fill out a bank deposit, compute cost of carpet for a room, extract information from a table or graph

• Unrealized earnings due to illiteracy very high (237 billion for 25-34 year illiterate men

• 1/3 welfare mothers are functionally illiterate• 60% adult prison population are functionally illiterate• 80% juvenile delinquents are functionally illiterate• 70% dictated business letters need to be corrected• 30% nave recruits are a “danger to themselves”• Illiterates cannot read an IRS notice are know their rights

(d) Illiterate? Who. US

18

• National Standards

• School Choice

• Teacher Credentials

• Minority Students and Teachers

• Affirmative Action

(e) School Reform: The Policy Debate--Testing

(Magnet schools, charter schools, vouchers). School choice experiments France & Britain indicate result of greater class segregation ($ and influence get the “best”) (p468-469)

Nearly all other industrialized nations have national standards, Pres Clinton proposed a standard in 1997 (read by end of 3rd grade), new test would rate against an absolute not just compare, criticisms (who decides standard, is there agreement?, assumes children learn at same pace, calls for standardized answers, creates teaching to the test,result in mediocrity, emphasizes WASP interests, eliminates local control),

Civil rights and Women’s movement decreased quality & Ed majors (could get better jobs), 80 SAT points lower for those interested in becoming teachers, suggested reforms (p469), tidal wave II increase need for teachers

Many see education for disadvantaged is the major challenge, test scores and drop outs increase with age, head start and cooperative learning found effective, need minority models at all levels, Comer schools work (p471)

Quotas now illegal, minorities in TX and CA schools down, look for alternative non test admission procedure (e.g. Bates found no difference in performance-p472)19

(1) U.S.*

(2) China*

(3) USSR*

(4) Europe*

(5) Japan*

5 (3.) A Global Perspective, A Cross-cultural Education

20

(1) U.S

• starts kindergarten 5 years old

• philosophy; individual achievement, innate differences, education is for all, contest mobility

• structure; k-6, JR. High, JC, College, Grad

• Evaluation; varies (ex CAT), ACT &SAT & GRE for college

• Data; 81.7 % grad from HS (1995) 40 % attend college ?? % grad college 50 % ? functionally illiterate (rank 49 out of 158 UN)

(page 466 –write letter, basic calculations,read a table…)

Not complete

21

(2) China needs verification and additions-text p 473

• starts day care/kindergarten 2(?) years old

• philosophy; group/collective performance, basic education is for all, few have opportunity for advanced Ed.

• structure(?); pre-k, 1-6, 3 yr.s JR. High, 3 yr High, JC, College, Grad

• Evaluation; political correctness & competence (varies)

• Data; Hi % functionally literate read & write (1949 not literate) 1 % attend college ?? % grad college ?? % functionally illiterate

Not complete

22

(3) USSR- needs verification and additions

• starts

• philosophy; group/collective performance, basic education is for all

• structure

• Evaluation(?); political correctness & competence (varies)

• Data; ?? % functionally literate read & write ?? % attend college ?? % grad college ?? % functionally illiterate

Not complete

23

(2) Germany needs verification and additions-text p 476

• starts• philosophy; only selected obtain highest level,

sponsored mobility

• structure(?); selection grade 1-4 for:hauptschule; vocational training through 9th graderealschule; higher level tech training through 10th

gymnasium; regrious preperation for University

• Evaluation; vocational training highly respected, unlike US

• Data; Hi % functionally literate read & write (1949 not literate) 1 % attend college ?? % grad college ?? % functionally illiterate

Not complete

24

(4) Europe-Great Britain verification and additions-text p 476

• starts

• philosophy; basic education for all, higher Ed. a priviledge for UC and gifted

• structure(?);

• Evaluation; age 11"grammar schools" small % get Univ. prep "secondary modern"most get basic Ed. and

vocational [broader then US vocational]

• Data; Hi % most leave "secondary modern" by 15 1 % attend college ?? % grad college ?? % functionally illiterate

Not complete

25

(5) Japan text page 477Not complete

26

• philosophy; resembles European and Chinese modelsee all children as born equal, effort “garambu”makes diffirence in success, high standards, girls nottreated equal to boys(High school grad know as much as US College Grad)

• structure(?); National exam at 14Vocational HSAcademic HS

National exam end 12th grade determinesUniversity admittanceElite University admittance

• Evaluation; • Data;

?? % most leave "secondary modern" by 15?? % attend college

?? % grad college ?? % functionally illiterate

D. The Challenge for the future

Not complete

27

Dead Poet's Society

• What was the teacher (Robin Williams) trying to do in the movie?

• What is your school trying to do? How is it alike or different from the movie?

• Should/could your school teach like the teacher in the movie?

• What theories, concepts, research in the text applies to the movie?

28

Bakersfield City Schools1999

29

Ethnicity Bakersfield City Elementary Students

30

Ethnicity Bakersfield City Teachers 1999

Click here for CSUB Demographics

31

Public College Going Rates of California High School Graduates

When fees rose dramatically, in fall 1991, the UC's college-going rate was not affected. UC's clientele was able to contend with the increase.

The CSU's rate, on the other hand, fell from 10.4 in fall 1990 percent to 7.1 percent in fall 1993. At the same time, the California community colleges' rate went up. There was an apparent shift of freshmen from the CSU to the community colleges.

The overall rate, however, also fell, going from 56.6 percent in 1991 to 53.7 percent in 1993 . The movement from the CSU to the community colleges did not fully compensate for the drop at the CSU, and the overall college going rate went down.

32

California College Attendance

34.0%

36.5% 36.2%37.3% 37.4% 37.1%

10.7% 10.8% 10.4% 9.8%

7.9% 7.6%

7.7% 7.3% 7.3% 7.1% 7.2% 7.1%

55.4%56.6% 56.1% 56.6%

54.1% 53.7%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

Par

ticip

atio

n R

ate

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

Year

College-Going Rates of California Public High School Graduates as UC, CSU, and CCC System First-Time Freshmen

CommunityColleges

CSU

UC

Total

33

Kern County Public High School Graduate College-Going Rates

The next graph shows the college-going rates of Kern County public high school graduates. Between 1990 and 1991, there was a dramatic decrease in the rate at which Kern County high school graduates enrolled at the community colleges.

The college-going rate to the CSU actually rose between 1990 and 1991, then decreased. For the UC, the college-going rate was steady except for a drop in 1993.

34

Kern College Attendance Chart

35.2%

38.1%

42.9%

30.1%31.8%

30.1%

8.0% 7.7% 7.6%8.5%

6.6% 6.5%

2.9% 2.4% 2.5% 2.2% 2.6%1.7%

47.8%49.3%

54.2%

41.8% 41.9%

39.5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

Par

ticip

atio

n R

ate

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

Year

College-Going Rates of Kern County Public High SchoolGraduates as UC, CSU, and CCC System First-Time Freshmen

CommunityColleges

CSU

UC

Total

35

CSU System College-Going RatesThe graph below shows the participation rates of California public high school graduates as

first-time freshmen at all campuses of the CSU System. There was an overall participation rate decline that began in 1991 when CSU fees rose dramatically. The rate went from 10.6 percent in fall 1990 to 9.7 percent in fall 1991. It bottomed out at 7.5 percent in fall 1993, and rose to 8.4 percent in fall 1994.

The various ethnic groups show different patterns. The rates for white students began to decrease earliest (in fall 1988). Between 1987 and 1990, the decrease in the white rate was counterbalanced by increases in minority participation rates. Asian and Filipino rates began to decrease in fall 1990, the year before CSU fees rose. The rates for African Americans and Latinos began dropping in fall 1991, coinciding with the fee increases.

The participation rates of all ethnic groups were affected by the CSU's fee increases. However, the rates for whites, Asians, and Filipinos began to fall before the fee increases occurred.

36

CSU System College-Going Rates

14.6%

15.7%

16.6%

18.4%

19.3%

18.5%

15.4%

11.7% 11.7%

19.5%

18.8%19.3%

19.6%

20.2%

18.6%

17.3%

14.2%

13.0%

9.9% 9.9%

10.6% 10.4% 10.6%10.3%

9.7%

7.8%7.5%

8.4%9.4% 9.5%9.9%

9.4%9.0%

8.3%

7.6%

5.9%5.5%

7.3%7.5%

8.2%7.8%

8.8%

10.2% 10.3%

8.8%

8.1%

5.8% 5.9%

7.0% 7.0%

7.7% 7.9% 7.8%

6.7% 6.6%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

11%

12%

13%

14%

15%

16%

17%

18%

19%

20%

21%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

11%

12%

13%

14%

15%

16%

17%

18%

19%

20%

21%

Par

ticip

atio

n R

ate

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

Year

College-Going Rates of California Public High School Graduates as CSU System First-Time Freshmen

Black

Latino

Total

White

Asian

Filipino

Total

White

Black

Latino

Asian

Filipino

37

Kern County to CSUB College-Going Rates

Since 1992, there has been a slow but steady increase in the rate at which Kern County public high school graduates come to CSUB as first-time freshmen. The rate has gone from 3.8 percent in 1993 to 4.4 percent in 1995.

The overall increase is due to increases in minority college-going rates. The college-going rate for Kern County white high school graduates coming to CSUB has been relatively constant.

38

Kern County to CSUB College-Going Rates

5.0%

4.1%

4.9%

4.7%

4.0%

3.7%

4.8%

3.8%4.0%

4.2%

4.4%4.7%

3.7%

4.4%

3.4%

3.0%

2.8%

3.1%

2.5% 2.4%

2.7%2.6%

5.6%

4.6%

5.7%

5.2%

7.5%

4.6%

5.9%

5.1%

6.4%

7.6%

6.5%

4.5%4.4%

5.1%

6.1%

4.9%4.8%

6.1%

5.0% 5.0%4.8%

5.2%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

Par

ticip

atio

n R

ate

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

Fall Quarter

College-Going Rates of Kern County Public High School Graduates as CSUB First-Time Freshmen

Black

Latino

Total

White

39

Kern County Public High School a to f Graduates

The graphs on the next page shows the percentages of Kern County public high school graduates who were counted as having competed the University of California's college preparatory subject pattern (a to f pattern). While there was a small decrease between 1993 and 1994, the percentages do not show a decreasing trend over the past few years.

40

Kern County Public High School a to f Graduates

26.5%

38.1%

46.3%45.3%

31.9%

46.3%

40.4%

31.5%

18.5%17.6%

22.6%21.3%

24.2%

21.1%

24.3% 23.9%

19.6%21.8%20.8%

26.0%24.6%

27.3%

24.7%

29.1%

27.4%

24.8%

9.2%10.3%

13.8%

23.6%

17.5%

15.9%

18.1%

15.1%

18.5%

10.5%

10.3%

8.7%

12.2%

20.2%

12.1%

16.4%

12.2%

14.1%

16.0%

11.6%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Par

ticip

atio

n R

ate

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

Year

Kern County Public High School Graduates: Percents Who Were a to f Graduates

Black

Latino

Total

White

Asian &Filipino

41

College-Going Rates of Kern County a to f Graduates

Since fall 1992, there has been a steady increase in the rate at which Kern County a to f graduates come to CSUB as first-time freshmen. Except for a small decrease for whites in fall 1995, the increases since 1992 have occurred for all ethnic groups.

Whites however, have the lowest rates and are significantly below the minority and overall rates. This, with the high proportions of CSUB undergraduate transfers who are white, suggests that baccalaureate seeking white high school graduates are more likely to take the community college route than are minority high school graduates.

42

College-Going Rates of Kern County a to f Graduates graph

21.3%

14.4%13.7%

9.4%

14.6%

11.6%

16.6%

10.6%

12.8%

15.5%

16.7%18.8%

13.4% 13.4%

7.0%

10.9%

9.4%

11.2%

7.3%

8.5%

9.9%9.3%

21.7%

10.0%

20.6%

7.9%

18.4%

8.9%

19.2%

14.9%

17.2%

23.5%

29.8%

27.7%

20.0%

14.6%

17.7%

26.8%

19.6%

27.8%

19.6%18.8%

25.3%

27.3%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Par

ticip

atio

n R

ate

84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96

Fall Quarter

College-Going Rates of Kern County a-f High SchoolGraduates as CSUB Regularly-Admitted First-Time Freshmen

Total

White

Latino

Black

43

Considerations:Values; broad abstract shared standards of what is right, desirable, and worthy of respect

Two US values-Open class system, a social structural system that allows each person to rise to the highest level relative to their knowledge, skills and personal effort

-Education; a broad based formal and informal socialization system. The formal k-6, JR. High, JR. College and College is considered open to all. With hard work and deferred gratification formal education is considered the major method by which one “improves themselves” and prepares for climbing the class ladder.

EDUCATION STUDY QUESTIONS CHAPTER 12

44

Study Questions for Chapter 12 Education0. How is education in the US related to the value

system? (Pg. 404, also see above and refer to chapter 3)

1. What caused the schooling revolution --the expansion and lengthening of formal education in the US (Pg. 404-412)

2. Do schools provide a fair and open environment for social mobility (climbing the class ladder). If the answer is no how and why is it not. (Pg.412-423)

3. Has the overall quality of education in the US declined. If yes how and why. (Pg. 423-435)

4. How does the US system of education compare to the system of education other countries (Pg.435-439)

45

Wrong page #

Question 1

1. What is the “schooling revolution” and what are the positions on what caused it to occur(explain)?--the expansion and lengthening of formal education in the US (Pg. 444-453)

Topics: The Schooling Revolution Three Interpretations; Schooling for industrial Society, Schooling for Capitalism, Status Competition for Credentials.

Terms: Structural functionalism perspective, Conflict perspective, Status Competition, Credentials

46

Question 22. Schooling and inequality: do schools provide a fair

and open environment for social mobility (climbing the class ladder). If the answer is no how and why is it not. (Pg.453-463)

Topics: Schooling and Equality; Academic Achievement and Social Class (unequal colleges bottom left page 454), Race Gender and Academic achievement, Unequal Schools (School Funding, School Choice, The Coleman Report, Private verses Public Schools (School Choice-vouchers, Home Schooling), School Resegregation, Tracking, Pygmalion in the Classroom, Race Gender and Academic Achievement

Terms: School Choice (voucher, home schooling), magnet schools, de facto segregation, de jure segregation, tracking, “Pygmalion effect” - ”self-fulfilling prophecy”47

Question 3

3. The Quality of schools: has the overall quality of education in the US declined. If yes how and why. (Pg. 423-435)

Topics: Student Achievement, Academic standards, Learning Environments, Illiterate? Who, Us? School reform (National Standards, magnet schools and Vouchers, Teacher Credentials, Minority Students and Teachers, affirmative action, beyond schools (disengaged students)

Terms: Standardized tests, good teaching (page 429, 430), cooperative learning,

48

Question 4

4. Education in Global Perspective: how does the US system of education compare to the system of education other countries (Pg.473-479)

Topics: Education in a Global Perspective; China, Western Europe, Japan,

Terms: British “grammar schools” and “secondary modern”, German hauptschule and gymnasium, contest mobility, status mobility, Japanese garambu,

49

Thought Questions

1. What do you believe is the best sociological explanation of education in the US. Support your position with text as well as current data

2. What do you see as the major problems of schools in the US (your school?) and what would you with your vast sociological knowledge propose to solve these problems?

3. If US education is so bad why are our economics so good?

50

Vocabulary• 1. Authoritative parents (473)• Authoritarian parents (473)• 2. Charter schools (468)• Chinese schools system (473)• 3. Conflict perspective (449)• 4. Cooperative learning (471)• Comer-influenced schools (471)• Disengaged students (472)• 5. Education (444)• European schools system (476)• 6. Functionalist perspective (445)• Head start (471)• Ideal Culture (473)• Japanese school system 9477)• Illiterate (466)• Magnet schools (468)• National Standards (468)

• Permissive parents (473)• Private schools (457)• 7. Real Culture (473) • School choice (468)• School accountability• Schooling (444)• School resegregration (459)• 9. Schooling revolution (444)• 10. Self-fulfilling prophecies (461)• 11. Status competition and

credentials(452)• Standardized tests (463)• Teacher Credentials (469)• Tracking (459)• Vouchers (469)

51

Quiz1. Formal socialization is called ______________ 2. Name 1 of the three theories discussed in the text that specifically explaining US education? __________________

3. Give one unique function of schools in industrial society ______________

4. What % of Japanese high school students know as much as the typical US college grad ______________

5. How much will a typical C.S.U.B. graduate gain in income over comparable people who did not go to college? _______

6. If you had a low achieving child and it was recommended he/she be placed in a non college track, what would be the "best" choice according to the text? Yes or No

7. One text recommendation to improve teacher quality?___

Don’t Print

52

Quiz1. Formal socialization is called

"schooling" not "Education"

2. Name 1 of three text theories specifically explaining U.S. education ? Industrialism, capitalism, status/credentials

3. Give one unique function of schools in industrial society (399)custody, social control, status, credentials, selection *mine Health & Welfare

4. What % of Japanese high school students know as much as the typical US college grad. 50%

5. How much will C.S.U.B. students gain in income over comparable people who did not go to college (454). 0%

6. If you had a low achieving child and it was recommended he/she be placed in a non college track Yes or No

7. One recommendation to improve teacher quality, (432) national standards, 4 year degree prior to teach, autonomy

Don’t Print

53

Concept Quiz Chapter 12

1. education

2. Magnet schools

3. schooling

4. tracking

5. vouchers

6. Affirmative action

Don’t Print

Define and give an example of each of the following concepts

Omit any one term must write OMIT over the question number54