EDUCATION, JOBS, AND-THE u. s.~ CLASS-STRUCTURE Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY GREGORY DOUGLAS SQUIRES 1976 This is to certify that the thesis entitled EDUCATION, JOBS, AND THE U.S. CLASS STRUCTURE presented by GREGORY DOUGLAS SQUI RES has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. . So ' l _degree1n cuo ogy Tied/(xx/[a/Aé/ 4 ,2 T I «(56): Major pr e Mics; “in State: Uni‘vcuit’ .; ABSTRACT EDUCATION, JOBS, AND THE U.S. CLASS STRUCTURE By Gregory Douglas Squires This study empirically tests two competing interpretations of the role of education, the linkages between formal education and the occupa- tional structure, and the nature of social stratification in the United States. The conventional interpretation, rooted in functionalist theory, maintains that fOrmal education has expanded in order to provide workers with the increasing level of skills required in a modern industrialized society and to create greater equality. A class interpretation,rooted in conflict theory, maintains that the function of education has been to stabilize and legitimize the existing class structure through the incul- cation of appropriate attitudes and values. A variety of data are brought to bear on the following issues generated by this theoretical debate: l. Can the eXpansion of fermal education in the United States be explained in terms of technological advances or changes in the technical skill requirements of jobs? 2. While education has long been associated with income and occupational prestige. is it the noncognitive characteristics or the technical skills inculcated by schools which are rewarded in the occupational structure? 3. Has formal education performed the democratizing function with which it has been credited? More specifically. has the ex- pansion of formal education led to greater economic equality? 7! Gregory Douglas Squires 4. In light of the answers to the first three questions, to what extent can educational reform contribute to the creation of greater economic equality in the future? The effect of technological change on job skills and the relation- ships between the amount of education required to function on the job, the educational requirements established by employers, and the educa- tional attainment of workers are examined by reviewing previous studies J which have focused on these issues, government evaluations of changing skill and educational requirements of jobs, and a simulated longitudinal analysis of selected employees within six private corporations. The relative importance of cognitive and noncognitive traits learned in school and subsequently rewarded on the job is evaluated by reviewing studies which have surveyed employers on the kinds of attributes they seek in their employees along with the values these employers attach to formal education, and from a series of personal interviews conducted with recruiters who visited Michigan State University in the Spring of 1975. The extent to which educational expansion has been translated into greater economic equality is analyzed in light of post World War II census data on educational attainment and the distribution of income, wealth, unem- ployment, and poverty status for various sectors of the population. The basic findings are: (l) technological change cannot account for the increasing educational requirements of jobs and attainment of workers; (2) it is the noncognitive rather than the cognitive character- istics of workers and values imparted by schooling which are rewarded in the occupational structure; and (3) while educational attainment has become more equal, little change has occurred in the relative economic status of the various income strata and of minorities and women. In light of these findings, it appears that educational reform is not likely Gregory Douglas Squires to have a significant impact on social stratification in the United States. The class perspective provides a more adequate explanatory frame- work for the evidence presented in this study. The crucial distinction between these two perspectives and the principle reason for the super- iority of the latter viewpoint revolves around the issue of class. The conventional perspective portrays American society as basically a demo- cratic system where individuals compete in a free market on the basis of their individual capabilities and are rewarded according to universal- istic criteria of performance that are objectively determined and mea- sured. The class perspective maintains that the dynamics of the class structure, rather than characteristics of individuals, are central determinants of the reward structure. Different classes interact in a set of exploitative relationships through which the dominant groups maintain their hegemony. A variety of subjective, ideological mechanisms, including fermal educational institutions, serve to counteract those conflicts which are inherent in American society and which threaten existing power relations, in order to maintain the basic class structure of society. The failure of the many liberal reforms adopted in the l9605 to create greater equality. and the problems with the notion of equality of opportunity as a strategy fer creating a more democratic society in general or greater economic equality in particular, are rooted in these misguided assumptions of the conventional perspective from which they emerged. The major policy implication of this study is that to educate, or to somehow otherwise alter the characteristics of individuals will not solve the social problems particularly inequality. of the United Gregory Douglas Squires States. Attention must be focused directly on the class structure which generates the distributive process and the patterns which emerge if significant change is to occur. EDUCATION, JOBS, AND THE U.S. CLASS STRUCTURE BY Grégory Douglas Squires A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Sociology 1976 Chapter II. III. VI. VI. TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables ................... INTRODUCTION .................... Education in American Society ........... The Issue of Class ................. The Evidential Base ................ THE EXPANSION OF FORMAL EDUCATION ......... School Attendance .................. School Expenditures ................ School Employment ................. Post War Expansion ................. THE CONVENTIONAL INTERPRETATION OF AMERICAN EDUCATION ..................... Democratization and Education ........... Technical Demands and Education .......... THE CHALLENGE FROM THE LEFT ............ The Radical Analysis of Education ......... Human Capital Theory Reconsidered ......... The Alternative Education Movement ......... SKILL REQUIREMENTS. EMPLOYER SELECTION STANDARDS. AND EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT ............. Technical Requirements and Educational Attainment Technological Change and the Skill Requirements of Jobs ...................... Formal Education and Job Perfbrmance ........ Age and Education of Similarly Employed Workers . . How Job Skills are Learned ............. Conclusions .................... HHAT ARE EMPLOYERS LOOKING FOR? .I ......... Validity of Employers' Responses .......... The Issue of Control ................ Conclusions .................... Page dmN 21 21 23 24 26 32 33 41 54 56 68 77 93 95 107 121 138 l52 163 l84 196 205 209 [Ill I'lllll‘II‘ll‘ill‘l III! 1 ll .u.| All Chapter VII. VIII. APPENDICES A EDUCATION AND ECONOMIC EQUALITY ........... Educational Equality ................ Economic Equality .................. Racial Economic Equality .............. Sexual Economic Equality .............. Conclusion ..................... THE CHALLENGE UPHELD ................ Interpretation of Major Findings .......... Policy Implications ................. Research Implications ................ The Role of Education: Technical Training or Social Control? ................... THE MEANING OF THE GED SCORE OF JOBS PROVIDED IN ESIIMATES OF WORKER TRAIT REQUIREMENTS FOR 4.000 JOBS ........................ SELECTED INDUSTRIES. OCCUPATIONS. AND NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN EACH OCCUPATION IN SIX PRIVATE CORPORATIONS .................... EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT BY AGE. INDUSTRY. AND OCCUPATION IN FIVE PRIVATE CORPORATIONS ....... BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................... iii Page 217 225 279 289 293 298 299 Table 11-1 11-2 V-l V-2 V-3 v-4 V-6 VI-l VI-2 VII-l VII-2 VII-3 LIST OF TABLES Page Indicators of Educational Expansion in the United States .................... 25 Educational Expansion Since World War II ...... 27 Educational Attainment of Workers in Selected "Dead End" Occupations: l9SO and 1960 ....... lOO White-Collar Workers as a Percentage of Total Labor Force ..................... ll5 Median Number of School Years Completed by U.S. Civilian Labor Force, by Occupational Group, l952 and l973 ...................... l39 Educational Attainment of the Male Civilian Labor Force by Age and Occupational Group ......... l4l Percentage of Male Workers with Four or More Years of College by Age and Occupation .......... 142 Degrees Earned and Average Number of Years Since Graduation for Office Machine Manufacturer Sales Representatives (Copier/Duplicator) ......... l47 Percent of Companies Finding Certain Worker Quali- fications of Outstanding Importance in Hiring Workers, by Occupational Group, New Haven and Charlotte ...................... l9l Intercorrelation of School and Work Perfbrmance Variables ...................... 207 Percentage of Total Family Income Received by Each Fifth and by Top Five Percent of Families. Selected Years Between l947 and l974 ............. 226 Distribution of Income for White Females. Black Males. and Black Females, 1949-1969 ............ 228 Distribution of Wealth and Income, l962 ....... 230 iv Table VII-4 VII-5 VII-6 VII-7 VII-8 VII-9 VII-10 VII-ll Share of Personal Wealth Held by Top Wealth Holders Selected Years 1922 and 1956 ............ Distribution of White and Nonwhite Workers by Occupational Classification, Selected Year 1958-1973 ......... j ............ Unemployment and Long Term Unemployment by Race, Selected Years 1948- 1975 .............. Persons Below the Low Income Level and Between 100 Percent and 125 Percent of the Low Income Level, by Race: Selected Years 1959-1974 .......... Ratios of Nonwhite/White Family Income and Median Years of School Completed, Selected Years, 1950-1974 Ratio of Black/White Male Income by Region. Selected Years, 1949-1969 .................. Distribution of Male and Female Workers by Occupa- tional Classification, Selected Years 1960-1973 . . . Median Income of Female Workers as a Percentage of Male Income by Occupation and by Education: 1960 and 1970 ...................... Page 230 236 239 242 245 246 251 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Throughout the course of American history formal education has undergone continuous and substantial expansion. Each generation of Americans has spent more years in school than its predecessor. More people have attended school, students have stayed in school for longer periods of time, and more public and private resources have been de- voted to education.* The major attractions of schooling have been the greater social and economic rewards which are available to the better educated members of society primarily because of the kinds of jobs for which that education qualifies them.** As a sign in the window of an Oakland. California pool hall once read. "If you don't finish school. how will you know what kind of work you're out of?"1 Few people will quarrel with the fact that better educated people generally earn more money, hold better jobs, and have greater access to the perquisites available in our society. But there is much debate over why this is the case. A consensus has not been reached regarding the specific contribution that formal education makes to an individual's ability to enjoy those perquisites (if indeed there is a causal relation- ship). the precise nature of the relationship between education and the *The nature and the extent of this expansion will be sunmarized in Chapter II. **Schooling and education of course are not exactly the same thing. However, except where otherwise stated. schooling and education will be used interchangeably to refer to the process of what goes on in formal educational institutions. larger society. and the causes of inequality in general. This study examines the linkages between an expanding formal educational apparatus and the occupational structure in order to contribute towards the de- velopment of a clearer understanding of the role of education in the dynamics of social stratification in the United States. Education in American Society Education has long been at the heart of a variety of controversial issues. The role education has played in American history. the functions education should perform in the future (particularly in regards to the issue(s) of equality), the subjects which should be taught in school (vocational education, college prep., etc.), how they should be taught, who should attend school, and even whether or not there should be schools. are just some of the subjects of debate. Social scientists, politicians, journalists, parents, teachers, students, and just about everybody else have contributed to the dialogue which has ranged from rational scienti- fic inquiry to emotional outbursts and sometimes physical violence. Much of the discourse, however, has centered around two basic com- peting interpretations of the role of education and the defining char- acteristics of American society. The specific objective of this study is to evaluate the relative adequacy of these two perspectives in terms of how well they explain the functions education performs in the United States. The Conventional Interpretation The conventional interpretation of American education. which shares certain key assumptions with functionalist sociology and neo-classical economic theory, maintains that education has performed two basic interrelated roles (this interpretation will be discussed in greater detail, with full documentation, in Chapter III). First, it is argued that education has been a democratizing ferce which has counteracted the inequalities of the larger society. EducatiOn has created greater social and economic equality, it has facilitated upward mobility, and it has been an important factor in the reduction of poverty. Secondly, education has provided the nation with the skilled manpower required in a modern industrialized society. As a result of continual technological advances, work has become increasingly complex. More highly skilled jobs are created, the number of unskilled jobs is decreasing, and the level of skills required within occupations is constantly being upgraded. These changes in the nature of work call for changes in the organization of work. Demands for increased productivity. to maximize the quality and quantity of available goods and services have resulted in the bureau- cratization of work because bureacracy is considered to be a technically superior form of organization. The net result of these changes is a more productive society in which nearly everyone benefits. In order to further that social and economic progress an increasingly better educated work farce is required. Therefore. education has been, and must con- tinue to be expanded. In the United States, and in other western industrialized societies. it is argued that the distribution of rewards is increasingly based on universalistic criteria of achievement.. An individual's contribution to such societies determines the rewards that person will receive. The ability of an individual to contribute is largely determined by the skills he or she possesses, skills which generally are acquired in school. The complementarity between the two basic roles of education increases. therefore. as society becomes more developed. Because a person's con- tribution (skills) determines one's rewards, and because these skills are learned in school, education assumes greater importance in deter- mining an individual's role in society and for the further development of society as a whole. The correlation between low educational attain- ment and unemployment and the correlation between expansion and increas- ing productivity are often cited as proof that such causal relationships exist. The expansion of formal education is dictated, therefbre. by the fUnctional requirements of the social system and for the benefit of most of its constituent elements. From this perspective more school- ing is equated with social progress. Education has expanded in the past in order to accomplish desirable social goals and more education in the future is considered to be an effective way to continue such progress. A Class Analysis There are indications that the demand for and the expansion of formal education may have peaked. The average annual birthrate has declined since the post World War II "baby boom" and if this should continue, of course, the number of school age people would continue to 2 But there is evidence. in decline, as would the demand for education. addition to population statistics, which indicates that the historical pattern of continuous educational expansion may be changing. Since 1968. the percentage of high school graduates going on to 3 A number of reasons can be college in the fall has been dropping. cited to account fbr this drop. Elimination of the military draft may explain part of it. Rising tuition costs keep some students out of college. The increasing unemployment and underemployment of college graduates may have made college less attractive to some.4 As a result of recent civil rights legislation and court decisions, educational requirements for employment now must be validated on job related grounds.5 Several employers have had to eliminate or lower some of their educational requirements. If the federal government should pursue this kind of activity. the pressure to obtain educational requirements may be reduced and a further reduction in college enrollments could result. For a variety of reasons at least some people have begun to question the value of spending more and more years in school. In turn, this has stimulated‘ a re-analysis of the role of education in American society and a serious challenge to the conventional interpretation of that role. The class perspective (which will be discussed in Chapter IV) challenges the contentions that education has been a democratizing farce and that it has expanded in order to meet the rising technical skill requirements of jobs. It is argued that formal education has served primarily as an agency of social control; to reconcile the class con- flicts inherent in a capitalist economic system in such a way that the dominant classes could maintain that system and their positions within ~ it. The thrust has been to legitimize and stabilize the existing class structure rather than to promote social change in the direction of greater equality and social mobility. The early development of mass public education and the expansion of education, it is argued. were motivated by the concern, on the part of the economic elites. to indoc- trinate the masses to accept their positions in society and the legi- timacy of the mode of distribution in that society. Although it has been necessary to equip workers with a minimum level of technical skills, those skills are generally learned informally. on the job. Schools do contribute to the development of technical skills, but a more important function of formal education has been the inculcation of appropriate personality characteristics so that workers would accept and perform their roles within the social relations of production increasingly characterized by a hierarchical division of labor. Rather than being technologically determined, the division of labor and the bureaucratic organization of work evolved as a means for capitalists to maintain control over workers, the work process, and the profits generated by that process. Changes in the noncognitive requirements of work, which have evolved as a result of the bureaucratization of work, not changes in the technical skill requirements, have created the need for an ex- panding educational system. Over the years immigrants had to be Ameri- canized, the social relations of production had to be legitimized and the basic structure of capitalism had to be stabilized. The class perspective acknowledges the relationship between a person's education and his or her income and occupation, and the fact that increasingly higher levels of education are required within the occupational structure, particularly at the upper levels. But the dyna- mics of these relationships are described in far different terms than in the explanation offered by the conventional interpretation. According to the class analysis employers view educational attainment and creden- tials as indicators of attitudes and values which are supportive of the social relations of production under capitalism. Those with greater levels of schooling are attractive to employers more because they are considered likely to fit smoothly into the organization than because of any technical ability associated with a given level of education. The correlation between education and income, etc. is also explained, in part. because employers frequently seek out and reward those who are better educated. again independently of any absolute level of skill associated with any particular amount of education. As the educational attainment of the population increases, so do educational requirements of jobs, frequently in cases where the work performed on the job has not changed. In addition to the belief that better educated people have more throughly internalized the prevailing values and status cul- ture is the assumption that more years of schooling means a better qualified employee in terms of both cognitive and noncognitive terms. Stringent educational requirements are also often established to limit entry into certain occupations for the purpose of maintaining or increas- ing a scarcity of practitioners, thus protecting the market value of the services offered and the privileged positions of those on the inside. The allocation of rewards on the basis of educational attainment, a seemingly meritocratic mode of distribution, masks the actual dynamics of the stratification process, according to this perspective. Class and power relationships rather than individual deficiencies and capa- bilities explain who gets what and why in American society. Education is basically a tool which has been used by dominant groups to maintain existing social relationships. The inequalities within educational institutions merely relfect the class relationships in the larger society. Eliminating educational inequalities would not alter the forces which generate those class relationships, or the distributive patterns which result. Given the function an expanding educational system has performed in the past, more education in the future is not likely to accomplish the kinds of social reforms traditionally expected from schools. Rooted in a conflict framework. the class perspective maintains that the expan- sion of education has been motivated by the needs of the dominant classes to reconcile conflicts inherent under capitalism rather than by a desire to achieve progressive social change or to meet the functional needs of a democratic society. The Issue of Class The crucial distinctions between these two interpretations of the linkages between education and jobs and the nature of inequality in the United States revolve around the issue of class. The term "class" will be used to refer to a group of pe0ple who have similar power in terms of life chances, or access to the goods, services, pri- vileges, and other rewards a society has to offer.6 The term "class structure" refers to groups of people who enjoy different levels of power. Although the occupational structure and the class structure are not identical, in the United States occupation has been a major determinant of a person's location in the class structure. As Blau and Duncan stated, The occupational structure in modern industrial society not only constitutes an important foundation far the main dimensions of social stratification but also serves as the connecting link between different institutions and spheres of social life. and therein lies its great signi- ficance. The hierarchy of prestige strata and the hierarchy of economic classes have their roots in the occupational structure; so does the hierarchy of political power and authority, for political authority in modern society is largely exercised as a full time occupation. Because "the backbone of the class structure, and indeed of the entire reward system of modern Western society, is the occupational structure,"8 far the purposes of this analysis occupational structure and class struc- ture will be treated as essentially synonymous. The conventional interpretation, which fOcuses on differences in individual capabilities, maintains that the distributive process is based primarily on the free play of the market. The way to achieve greater equality in the distribution of rewards is to improve the marketability (skills) of those at the lower end of the stratifica- tion system. Basically, this means providing those people with more education. While acknowledging the existence of social classes and certain factors, like racial discrimination, which interfere with the operation of a free market, the United States is viewed as essentially a democratic, pluralistic society in which such factors have marginal influence in determining the distribution of rewards. The challenge to the conventional viewpoint maintains that social class and other extra market factors are central characteristics of society and that they are primary determinants of the distributive process. Social classes exist in a state of conflict in which certain groups dominate and exploit others. Some groups enjoy greater rewards, therefore, at the expense of other groups. Inequality is not a function of differences in individual capabilities. Rather an individual's loca- tion in the stratification system is a function of a person's group or class affiliation, particularly in terms of the productive process. Altering the patterns of distribution, therefore, requires changing the class structure itself. Educating or somehow otherwise altering the capabilities of those at the lower end of the system may provide social mobility for some individuals, but it will not change the pattern of inequality in that system. Clearly, these two perspectives represent widely divergent views of the role of education in the United States, the relationship between education and jobs, the causes of inequality, and the nature of.American lO society in general. Some of the central themes of each perspective are in direct contradiction with each other. Yet both attempt to explain the same social reality. There is some overlap between these two interpretations and in all likelihood that reality does not confOrm to every contention of either perspective. It is also possible that a synthesis may emerge out of the clash of these perspectives which will constitute a more adequate explanation of these phenomena. The inten- tion here, however, is not to finally prove or disprove each contention of both perspectives or to fully develop a synthesis, but to examine evidence which distinguishes between these two perspectives. Because of the divergence of the main thrusts of these interpretations and the crucial areas in which they are in direct contradiction, evidence which supports one, will frequently at the same time controvert the credibility of the other. For the same reasons it is plausible to assume that one of these perspectives more adequately explains social reality than the other. In order to distinguish between these perspectives and to evaluate their relative adequacy, evidence will be brought to bear on the follow- ing questions: 1. Can the expansion of fOrmal education in the United States be ex- plained in terms of technological advances or changes in the techni- cal skill requirements of jobs? 2. While education has long been associated with income and occupational prestige, is it the noncognitive characteristics or the technical skills inculcated by schools which are rewarded in the occupational structure? 3. Has formal education performed the democratizing function with which it has been credited? More specifically, has the expansion of formal ll education led to greater economic equality? 4. In light of the answers to the first three questions, to what extent can educational refbrm contribute to the creation of greater economic equality in the future? 'To be sure social reality is more complex than either perspective, as outlined here, purports. The objective of this analysis is not to reveal an either/or situation in which the contention of one perspective exists at the total exclusion of the alternative contention. Obviously that is not the case. Rather, the objective is to distinguish between primary as opposed to secondary explanations for social phenomena. The Evidential Base A variety of material will be examined in order to addresslthese questions. The nature of the issues here requires it. If the objective was to analyze the employment practices of a particular company, or even a particular industry, it might be possible to use the personnel records of that company or industry to do an adequate assessment. But the objective here is much broader. There is no single source of evi- dence which would adequately answer these questions. None of the approaches described below would, in and of itself, lead to a defini- tive statement. But the cumulative results of this project should pro- vide the basis far reasonably sound conclusions about education, the occupational structure, and the social stratification in the United States. Question 1: Can the expansion of formal education in the United States be explained in terms of technological advances or changes in the technical skill requirements of jobs? The first question will be addressed, in Chapter V, in the following five ways. First, in order to analyze the effect of technological advance 12 and changes in the level of technical skills required in jobs on the level of educational attainment, the relationship between the amount of formal education required to perfOrm on the job with the educational attainment of workers holding those jobs will be examined. The U.S. Employment Service publications, Estimates of Worker Trait Character- istics far 4000 Jobs, published in 1949, and the 1966 expansion and revision of that reference, Selected Characteristics of Occupations, represent the most comprehensive attempts to determine the amount of farmal education required in order to be able to perfbrm on the job. The research of those who have compared the required with the actual educational attainment, based on these two Employment Service publica- tions and census data from various years (particularly the 1950 and 1960 census) and how differences between the required and actual educa- tional attainment have changed will be reviewed. If changing technical skill requirements account for the expansion of formal education then there should be a reasonably close relationship between the required and actual educational attainment. The increase in educational attainment over time should also be related to changes in the amount of education required in order to be able to perform on the job. If these conditions do not hold, some other explanation far the expansion in formal education would be warranted. One possible explanation, if such conditions do not hold, is the contention of the class perspective that educational requirements serve as a mechanism for limiting the number of people who can enter the occu- pation. If the supply of better educated workers is such that no scarcity of practitioners results, another plausible explanation would be the con- tention that the educational requirements are used to locate workers with 13 more compatible attitudes and values. Another possible interpretation would be that although more education is not required far adequate job performance, better educated workers are still technically better quali- fied and it would be rational fer employers to seek out superior workers if their choice is between average and superior employees. But this explanation would controvert the interpretation that the correlation between low educational attainment and unemployment is due to the in- ability of these people to adequately perfbnm on the job and that educa- tion has expanded in order to provide workers with skills without which they would be unemployable. The second approach to the first question will be to examine the effects of automation and technological change in general on the skill requirements of jobs effected by such changes. The conclusions of several studies which have been conducted to determine the effect of such changes on job skills will be examined. If the level of skills required in these instances is not increased as a result of these changes, the technical theory would be further challenged and some other explana- tion could be found in the contention of the class perspective concern- ing the use of education as a mechanism for limiting entry into certain occupations or far identifying noncognitive attributes sought by employers. A third approach will be to examine the relationship between farmal education and the performance of workers on the job. Previous studies which have facused on this relationship and data collected from a sample of employers bearing on the education and job performance of their employees will be examined to determine whether or not better educated workers are, in fact, better or more productive employees. According to the technical theory there should be a positive relationship between 14 the quality of workers and their educational background. If this does not prove to be the case, the class perspective would be supported. The fourth approach will be to compare the educational attainment of older workers with that of younger workers performing the same job. A combination of census data, previous studies which have examined this relationship between age and education, and data which have been collected from a sample of employers will be examined. If the older workers per- forming a given task have less formal education than what is required of more recent entrants into the job, then these requirements either are not based on technical ground or the requisite skills are obtainable outside the classroom. In either case, there would be reason to suspect whether the formal education requirements in those instances can be justified on technical grounds. The contentions of the class perspec- tive cited above would, again, constitute a possible explanation. The fifth approach will be to examine how and where workers learn the skills they use on their jobs. Several surveys have been conducted to obtain this information from individual firms and industries and on a nationwide level. A central tenet of the technical theory is that essential job skills are learned in school and that education has expanded to provide this training. If, however, formal education has not been the principle vehicle through which members of the work ferce have learned their jobs, the technical theory would be weakened and the class perspec- tive would be strengthened. Question 2: While education has long been associated with income and occupational prestige, is it the noncognitive characteristics or the technical skills inculcated by schools which are rewarded in the occupational structure?' One way to examine the second question is simply to ask employers .‘i {E}..Vl III)... 15 what they are looking far when they recruit employees. When a minimum level of education is required, it would be infbrmative to know why that particular requirement was established and what qualities employers asso- ciate with those who have attained that level of education. Many surveys of employers and recruiters have been conducted over the years to elicit this kind of information. The findings of these surveys, supplemented by personal interviews conducted with recruiters, will be reviewed in Chapter VI. If a concern is expressed for people's technical skills, potential ability to learn requisite skills, mastery of a certain body of knowledge, or some other cognitive trait, particularly for those posi- tions in which educationalrequirements are relatively higher, these findings would support the conventional perspective. If, however, more concern is expressed fbr people's attitudes, personality traits, demeanor, or some other noncognitive trait, the class perspective would be supported. Question 3: Has formal education performed the democratizing func- tion with which it has been credited? More speci- ficially, has the expansion of formal education led to greater economic equality? The third question will be examined, in Chapter VII, by comparing changes in the distribution of educational resources with the distribu- tion of other factors such as income, wealth, occupational prestige, and unemployment. The principal source of evidence will be U.S. census data, supplemented by studies which have used census data and other sources of data to examine these issues. The fecus will be on what has occurred since World War II with particular attention being paid to differences in black/white and male/ female educational attainment and how changes in that gap have effected changes in the distribution of the other facotrs mentioned above between these two groups. There are several reasons for pursuing this kind of 16 analysis. First, as will be shown in the following chapter, the expan- sion of formal education has been particularly great during the post World War II years. More attention has been paid to racial issues, at least by governmental units, as is evident from the legislation passed and the number of civil rights commissions and agencies which have been established in the past few decades. Proportionately, blacks have pro- bably been excluded from the mainstream of society more than any other group and black/white confrontations have been among the most violent throughout American history, particularly in the 19605. Education has long been regarded as a key to solving many of the nation's domestic problems and the recent expansion of education is often justified, at least in part, as efforts on the part of federal, state, and local governments to deal with racial problems by bringing more blacks into the system. In the early 19605 sex discrimination began to receive more official recognition and women have since been classified as a protected group in most civil rights legislation. In recent years, more women have sought employment and they have constituted an increasingly larger percentage of the labor force. More wives have had to go to . work and more women have had to assume the role of breadwinner.9 As in the case of racial discrimination, education is considered a key to creating equal opportunity_f6r women. . There is evidence that access to fbrmal education and the level of ‘0 parti- educational attainment has become more equal in recent years, cularly between blacks and whites, but also among almost all other groups, including men and women. If this is true, and if there has been a concomitant equalization of income and wealth among the entire population in general and between blacks and whites and men and women, 17 in particular, this would constitute evidence that education has had an equalizing effect. If the black/white and male/female income gaps have been reduced, if there is a larger percentage of blacks and women in higher prestige occupations, and if the unemployment levels of these groups have been equalized, the conventional perspective would be further strengthened. If, hoWever. the distribution of income and wealth throughout the population has not been equalized and if the income. occupational prestige, unemployment rate, etc. of blacks and whites and women have not been equalized (particularly among those with a similar level of educational attainment) then the class perspective would be strengthened. Question 4: In light of the answers to the first three questions to what extent can educational refbrm contribute to the creation of greater economic equality in the future? The theoretical objectives of this study are to assess two compet- ing perspectives regarding the rele of education in the United States, in order to develop a further understanding of the interaction between education and the class structure, and of the dynamics of the class structure itself. But there are important policy implications as well. The fourth question will be examined, in Chapter VIII, in light of the evidence brought to bear and the conclusions which are drawn far the first three questions. By understanding the factors which have accounted far the development of formal education, what it is about the educational process and the occupational structure and the linkages between the two which account for the persistent association between one's education and one's occupation, and particularly by understanding how successfully education has performed the democratizing function for which many ob- servers have given it credit, it will be possible to evaluate the 18 potential of educational expansion and reform as means for accomplishing such social reforms in the future. In addition to the questions that, hopefully, will be answered, a variety of new questions and directions for further research will emerge. These issues will also be addressed in the eighth, and concluding, chapter. Perhaps the most important question is the following: 00 schools perform primarily an educational function; that is. do they develop the minds and the critical faculties of young people, offer them the opportunity to develop their abilities and to pursue their interests, perform a technical function of develOping skills which adequately pre- pare people to become productive members of society for their individual benefit and for the welfare of the community: or do they perform pri- marily an ideological function; that is, do they serve to fit people into prearranged slots and to maintain and legitimize the existing class structure? The answer to this question would go a long way towards explaining the role of education in the United States and the dynamics of American life in general. More importantly, this answer would indi- cate how we can effectively move, or at least it would identify certain steps which might be relatively ineffective in moving towards greater economic equality, facilitating upward mobility and reducing poverty. Hopefully, this study will move us a little closer to these goals. REFERENCES 1Randal Collins, "Education and Employment: A Study in the Dynamics of Stratification" (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, 1969), p. l. 2Edmund W. Alchin, Population Report 1 (East Lansing: Institute fer Community Development and Serviées, 1972), Table 5, "The Average Annual Birth and Death Rates Per 1,000 Population for the United States and Divisions of States by the Decades Indicated." p. 7. 3Projections of Educational Statistics to 1983-1984, U.S. Depart- ment of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974), Table 14, p. 32 and Table 20, p. 43. By dividing the "Total First Time Degree Credit Enrollment" column of Table 14 by the “Total High School Graduates" column of Table 20, the percentage of high school graduates going on to college in a given year can be estimated. This procedure was used in making the fellowing estimates: Year Percent of High School Graduates Going on to College 1968-69 61.8 1969-70 _ 61.5 1970-71 50.0 1971.72 57.9 1972-73 57.8 In a personal letter from W. Vance Grant, specialist in educational statistics with the National Center for Educational Statistics, this procedure was recommended to me. with the precaution that these data indicate the percentage of high school graduates who did or will eventu- ally enroll in college but not necessarily in the same year as their high school graduation. However, according to Mr. Grant, recent studies by the American Council on Education indicate that about 93 percent of the freshmen did enter college in the same year they graduated from high school. 4Anne M. Young, "The High School Class of 1972: More at Work, Fewer in College," Monthly LabOr Review, June 1973, p. 28-29. Vera C. Perrella, "Employment of Recent College Graduates,“ Monthly Labor Review, February 1973. 19 20 5The principal laws and orders requiring equal employment oppor- tunity and affirmative action are: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII; The Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972; Executive Order 11246; Executive Order 11375; Revised Order No. 4; The Equal Pay Act of 1963; Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI; Education Amendments Act of 1972, Title IX. For a summary of these regulations see Affirmative Action and Equal Employment Opportunity: A Guidebook fer Employers, Vol. I and II, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974). Court decisions which have addressed the issue of educational requirements are generally based on Title VII and the EEOC's interpretation of that law, which is spelled out in "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures," Federal Register, Volume 35, No. 149, August 1, 1970, p. 12333-12336. Court rulings on the use of educational requirements include: Griggs v. Duke Power Company, U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. v. Gegggia Power Company, U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Watkin v. Scott Pa er Com an , et a1., U.S. District Court, Southern Alabama, Richardson v. CiviI Service Commission, New York State, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, U.S. v. Lee WgyyMotor Freight, Inc. U.S. District Court, Western District of Oklahoma, Johnson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company Synthetic Rubber Plant, et. a1., U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. 6Gerhard Lenski defined class as "an aggregation of persons in a society who stand in a similar position with respect to some ferm of power privilege, or prestige." Power and Privilegg_(McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1966) p. 74-75. Max Heber wrote, "We may speak of a 'class' when (l) a number of people have in common a specific causal component of their life chances, in so far as (2) this component is represented exclusively by econmic interests in the possession of goods and oppor- tunities fer income, and (3) is represented under the condi- tions of the commodity or labor markets." Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (Eds.) (New York: Oxford University Press, 1973) p. 181. 7Peter M. Blau and Otis Dudley Duncan, The American Occupational Structure (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1967) p. 7. 8Frank Parkin, Class Inequalityand Political Order (New York: Praeger Publishers, Inc., 1972) p. 1 . 9Elizabeth Waldman and Robert Whitmore, "Children of Working Mothers, March 1973,“ Monthly Labor Review, May, 1974. 10Christopher Jencks, et. a1., Inequality (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1973). CHAPTER II THE EXPANSION OF FORMAL EDUCATION Formal education has expanded tremendously throughout the history of the United States. A brief examination of student enrollment, money spent on formal education, employees of educational institutions, or virtually any other dimension of education would show this expansion, in both absolute and relative terms. The fellowing statistics indicate how formal education has grown. School Attendance The number of people enrolled in an elementary or secondary school or in an institution of higher education has more than tripled since the turn of the century. In 1970 more than 58,766,000 people were enrolled.1 This constituted approximately 29 percent of the total U.S. population.2 These figures compare to a total student enrollment of 45,227,620 (25 3 29,552,377 (24 percent) in 1930. percent of the U.S. population) in 1960, and 17,198,841 (23 percent) in 1900.4 The percentage of 5-17 year old people enrolled in an elementary or secondary school in 1970 was 86.9 percent. This compares with 82.2 percent in 1960, 81.7 percent in 1930, 71.9 percent in 1900. and 57 percent in 1870.5 More people are attending school and they are also staying in school for a greater number of years. The median number of school years com- pleted by those twenty-five years of age or older was 12.2 years in 1972. This figure compares with 10.5 in 1960, 8.4 in 1930, and 8.1 in 1910.6 21 22 The high school graduation rate among the nation's seventeen year olds has increased almost 3,700 percent in the past one hundred years. The percentage of seventeen year olds who graduated from high school was 75.9 in 1971, 65.1 in 1900, 29.0 in 1930, 6.4 in 1900, and 2.0 in 1870.7 The number of people attending a college or university today is thirty times what it was in 1960. Enrollment in institutions of higher education was 7,136,075 in 1969, 3,215,544 in 1960, 1,100,737 in 1930, and 237,592 in 1900.8 The percentage of people twenty-five years of age and older who completed four or more years of college was 12.0 percent in 1972, 7.7 percent in 1960, 3.9 percent in 1930 and 2.7 percent in 1910.9 The percentage of those who entered the fifth grade and who even- tually entered college has almost tripled in the past fifty years. Of those who were in fifth grade in 1962, 45.5 percent entered college. This compares with 14.8 percent of those who were in fifth grade in 1930 and 11.3 percent of those who were in fifth grade in 1925.10 This growth is not unique to any one segment of the population. While it is certainly true that some groups have had access to more and better education than others, virtually every identifiable group of people has spent more years in school with each passing generation. The median number of school years completed by non-whites twenty-five years of age or older was 10.5 in 1972 compared with 8.2 in 1960 and 5.7 in 1940. While 39.1 percent of this group completed fbur or more years of high school in 1972 and 6.9 percent completed four or more years of college in 1972, the comparable figures for 1960 are 21.7 percent and 3.5 percent while in 1940 the figures are 7.7 percent and 1.3 percent.11 The same phenomenon has also occurred in the case of women. The percentage of women between the ages of five and nineteen who were 23 enrolled in school was 86.2 in 1957, 69.7 in 1930, 50.9 in 1900, and 44.8 in 1850.12 The median number of years spent in school by white women twenty-five years of age and over was 12.3 in 1972 and 11.2 in 1960. The percentages completing four or more years of high school and college, respectivelywere 40.2 and 9.4 in 1972. In 1960 the compar- able figures were 29.2 and 6.0. For black women the median number of years spent in school was 10.4 in 1972 and 8.6 in 1960. The percentages completing four years of high school and four years of college was 25.8 and 4.8 in 1972 compared with 14.3 and 3.3 in 1960.13 Not only are people staying in school for a greater number of years, but the length of the school year itself has grown. The average school year term in 1970 was 178.9 days. This compares with 178.0 days in 1960, 172.7 in 1930, 144.3 in 1900, and 132.2 in 1870. Students are also attending a higher percentage of classes. The average student attended over 93 percent of the days in the.term in 1970. This compares with 90 percent in 1960, 83 percent in 1930, 69 percent in 1900 and 59 percent in 1870.]4 School Expenditures Another indication of the extensive growth of formal education is the amount of money devoted to it. Total expenditures for public and private elementary, secondary, and higher education in 1970 were over twenty-one times the level of expenditures in 1930. In 1970 schools spent $70,000,000,000 compared to $24,722,000,000 in 1960 and $3,234,000,000 in 1930. These figures represented 7.5 percent of the gross national product in 1970, 5.1 percent in 1960, and 3.1 percent in 1930.15 The per pupil expenditure in public elementary and secondary 24 schools was $889 in 1970, $525 in 1960, and $209 in 1930 (adjusted dollars, 1971-1972 purchasing power).16 The expenditure per day per pupil was more than six timesgreater in 1968 than in 1920. The 1968 figure was $3.68, in 1960 it was $2.44 and in 1920 it was $.59 (adjusted dollars, 1967-68 purchasing power).'7 These figures do not include the amount of money families spend on the education of their children or the amount students pay for their own education. As more people attend post secondary education these private expenditures probably increase at a faster rate than school expenditures since elementary and secondary schooling is free for most peOple while college is not. Clearly, the amount of public and private money spent on formal education has grown considerably. School Employment The growing number of people employed by schools accounts fer a large portion of the increasing expenditures. The total instructional staff of public elementary and secondary schools consisted of 2,253,000 people in 1970.18 This compares with 1,464,000 in 1960, 880,000 in 1930, and 678,000 in 1920,19 Not only has there been an increase in the number of school employees, but they have constituted an increasing percentage of the total civilian labor force. These workers accounted fer 63 percent more of the total civilian labor force in 1970 than they did in 1920. In 1970 they made up approximately .027 percent of the civilian labor force compared with .021 percent in 1960, .018 percent 2° The total instructional staff in 1930 and .017 percent in 1920. includes supervisors, principals, teachers, librarians and other non- supervisory staff members. Table II-l summarizes the data which have been presented on the expansion of education in the United States. 25 . TBLE Il-l INDICATORS OF EDUCATIONAL EXPANSION IN THE UNITED STATES School Attendance 1870 1900 1930 1960 1970 Total enrolleent in prim . secondary, and higher education (in t ousands) -- 17,198 29,652 45,227 58,766 Totgl enrollment as a 1 of total U.S. population -- 23.0% 24.01 25.0% 29.0% i of 5-17 year olds in elementary ' or secongggLschools 57.0% 71.91 81.71 82.21 86.9% Mian nuvber of school years completed by those ZSJeaI-s of age and older -- 8.10910) 8.4 10.5 12.2(1972) S of 17 year olds graduating from high school 2.0% 6.41 29..)1 65.1% 75.9%(1971) Total enrollnent in institutions of higher education (in thousands) -- 238 1,101 3L216 7,136(1969) S of those 25 years of age or older who conpleted 4 or more years of collgge -— 2.7%(1910) 3.92 7.7! 12.01 S of those who entered 5th grade and eventiilly entered collegg -- 11.8%(1925) 14.82 45.0fl1962) -- Median nunber of school years convicted by non-whites 25 years of ggg and older -- -- 5.7(1940) 8.2 10.5(1972) I of non-whites 25 years of age and older who conpleted 4 or mre years of high school -- -- 7.7%(1940) 21.71 39.1%(1972) S of non-whites 25 years of age and older who coupleted 4 or more years of collggg -- -- 1.3%(1940) 3.51 6.9%(1972) S of 5-19 year old women enrolled in school 44.810850) 50.” 59-" 35-21(195fl '- .iedian nunber of years spent in school by white wmggiiyean of £93 and older -- -- -- 11.2 12.3(1972) 1 of white women 25 years of age and older congleting 4 or were years of thh school -- -- -- 29.2% 40.2%(1972) S of white women 25 years of age and older conpleting 4 or were years of c0113; -- -- -- 6.01 9.4!(1972) Median nunber of years spent in school by black women 25 years of age and older -- -- -- 8.6 10.40972) 1 of black women 25 years of age and older conpleting 4 or more years of high school -- -- -- 14.3% 25.8%(1972) 1 of black women 25 years of age and older coupletigg4 or more years of collegg -- -- -- 3.3% 4.8%(1972) Aver-egg hunter of days in a oneyear school term 132.2 144.3 172.7 178.0 178.9 Avergggt of classes attended my students 59.3% 69.0% 83.0% 90.0% 93.0% School Exgenditures Total expenditures for public and private elementary. secondary, and higher education (in millions) -- -- $3,234 $24,722 $70,000 Total school expenditures as a t of gross national groduct -- —- 3.1! 5.11 7.5: Per pupil expenditure in public elementa and secondag schools (adjusted, 1971-72 -- -- 3209 $525 $889 School Eglomnt Total instructional staff of public elementary and secondary schools (in thousands) -- 678Q920) 880 1,464 2,253 Total instructional staff of public elementary and secondary schools as a S of total civilian labor force -- ”1172(1920) .0181 .021! .0272 26 Post War Expansion Although education has grown continuously throughout American history, the expansion which has occurred since World War II has been particularly large. During these years there has been a significant quantitative, if not qualitative, shift in the nation's commitment to education. During the 1945-46 school year $4,167,597,000 were spent for all levels of education. In the 1971-72 school year this figure reached $83,800,000,000. As a percentage of the nation's gross national product educational expenditures jumped from 2.0 percent to 8.0 percent during these years.21 The per pupil expenditure in public elementary and secondary schools increased more than 200 percent from $307 to $934 during these years22 (adusted dollars, 1971-72 purchasing power). The major changes during the post war period, however, occurred in higher education. Whereas enrollments at the elementary and secondary levels increased from 28,600,250 to 51,629,691 between 1949 and 1969, an increase of 80 percent, enrollments in higher education increased 23 168 percent from 2,659,021 to 7,136,075. The percentage of people in the 5-17 age bracket enrolled in school increased from 83.2 percent 24 in 1949 to 85 percent in 1967 while the percentage of those in the 18-24 age bracket enrolled in higher education increased from 14.2 percent in 1950 to 28.7 percent in 1967.25 The growth in the number of institutions of higher education since World War II compared to the change in the number of elementary and secondary schools also indicates that the expansion in formal education in recent years has been primarily at the upper levels. While the number of public and private elementary and secondary schools actually declined 27 from 167,291 to 109,294 (a drop of 57,997 or 35 percent) between 1950 and 1971, the number of institutions of higher education increased by 26 38 percent from 1,851 to 2,556. Table II-2 summarizes the expansion in education which has occurred since World War 11. TABLE II-2 EDUCATIONAL EXPANSION SINCE HORLD WAR II Before 1950 After 1967 Total expenditures for public and private elementary, secondary, and higher education (in millions) $ 4,167 (1945-46) $ 83,800 (1971-72) Per pupil expenditure in public elementary and secondary schools (adjusted, 1971-72) 307 (1945-46) 934 (1971-72) Enrollment in public and private elementary and secondary schools (in thousands) $ 28,660 (1949) $ 51,630 (1969) Percentage of 5-17 year olds in elementary or secondary schools 83.2% (1949) 85.0% (1969) Percentage of 18-24 year olds in higher education 14.2% (1950) 28.7% (1967) Total number of public and private elementary and secondary schools 167,291 (1950) 109,294 (1971) Total number of institutions of higher education 1,851 (1950) 2,556 (1971) International Growth The expansion in formal education is not unique to the United States, although it has developed further in the United States than anywhere else. In almost every industrialized nation, primary education 28 27 Enrollments in secondary and is now compulsory for all children. higher education have increased both absolutely and as a percentage of the school age population. Between 1950 and 1970, in these nations as a whole, school enrollments rose by more than 60 percent while the popu- lation between the ages of five and twenty-four increased by only 27 percent.28 Primary education student bodies increased by more than 30 percent, secondary education by almost 100 percent and higher educa- tion by 200 percent. In most cases expenditures have risen at a rate 29 Clearly, many countries are follow- of more than 10 percent per year. ing in the educational f00tsteps of the United States. That fermal education has expanded significantly throughout the course of American history is obvious from the most casual observation. The fact that this growth has occurred is not a matter of debate. The reasons for the expansion, however, are not so clear and there is much disagreement over why it has occurred. REFERENCES 1Statistical Abstract of the United States 1973, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973), No. 159, "School Enrollment, by Type of School: 1930-1970," p. 107. 2Based on a Total U.S. Population of 203,185,000. ngulation Re ort I, Edmond W. Alchin, (East Lansing Institute fer Community DEvelopment, 1972) Table 1, p. 2. 3The 1900, 1930, and 1960 Total U.S. Population Data used in cal- culating these percentages were taken from, Digest of Educational Statisticsggl972, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973), Table 32, "Historical Summary of Public Elementary and Secondary School Statistics: United States, 1869-70 to 1967-68," p. 34-35. 4The Enrollment Data fer the Years of 1900, 1930, and 1960, were taken from, Digest of Educational Statistics, 1972, Table 3, "Enroll- ment in Educational Institutions, by Level of Instruction and By Type of School: United States, 1899-1900 to Fall 1969," p. 7. 5The 1870 Data were taken from, Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1957, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1960), Series H 223-233, "Elementary and Secondary Schools, Enrollment and Attendance, and High School Graduates: 1870 to 1956," p. 207. The 1900 and 1930 data were taken from Digest of Educational Statistics 1972, Table 32, p. 34-35. The 1960 and 1970 data were taken from Statistical Abstract of_the United States 1973, No. 183, "Public Elementary and Secondary Schools - Summary: 1900 to 1970," p. 119. 601 est of Educational Statistics 1972, Table 12, "Level of School CagpletedbyPersons 25 Years Old and Over and 25 to 29 years 01d, By Color: United States, 1910 to 1972," p. 14. 7Ibid., Table 65, "Number of High School Graduates Compared with Population 17 Years of Age: United States, 1869-70 to 1970-71, " p. 55. 8Ibid., Table 3, p. 7. 91616., Table 12, p. 14. 29 30 10Ibid., Table 11, “Estimated Retention Rates, 5th Grade through College Entrance, in Public and Nonpublic Schools: United States, 1924-32 to l962-70," p. 14. 11 12Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1957, Series H 374-382, "School Enrollmenthates by Color and Sex: 1850-1957," p. 213. ‘3Statistica1 Abstract of the United States_l973, No. 175, "Years of School Completed, By Race and Sex: 1960 to 1972,“ p. 115. 14Data for 1870, 1900, and 1930 were taken from Di est of Educa- tional Statistics 1972, Table 32, p. 34. Data for 196 , and 1970 were takg? from, Statistical Abstract of the United States 1973, No. 183, p. 9. 15Statistical Abstract of the United States 1973, No. 160, "School Expenditures - Public and Private, By Type of Control and Level of Instruction: 1930-1973," p. 107. 16Di est of Educational Statistics 1972, Table 77, "Total and Current Expenditure Per Pupil in Average Daily Attendance in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools: United States, 1929-30 to 1971-72," p. 65. 17Ibid., Table 32, p. 34-35. Ibid., Table 12, p. 14. 18Statistica1 Abstract of the United States 1973, No. 183, p. 119. . '9The 1920, 1930, and 1960 data were taken from Digest of Educa- tional Statistics, Table 32, p. 34-35. 20The 1920 and 1930 percentages were based on the total civilian labor ferce as reported in, Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1957, Series 013-25, "Labor Force, By Age and Sex: to , p. . The 1960 and 1970 percentages were based on the total civilian labor ferce as reported in Statistical Abstract of the United States 1973, No. 347, "Employment Stitus Of’the’NOninStitutional Population, By Sex and Race: 1950 to 1973," p. 219. 2IN est ongucational Statistics 1972, Table 25, “Gross National Product RETated to Total Expenditures f0r Education: United States, 1929-30 to 1971-72," p. 25. Between the years of 1933 and 1943 education expenditures as a percentage of GNP dropped from 4.1 to 1.8. It started to climb again in 1945 and has continued to climb since then. 221bid., Table 77. p. 65. 23Ibid., Table 3, p. 7. 24Ibid., Table 32, p. 35. 31 zsgigest of Educational Statistics, 1974, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975) Table 86, "Degree-Credit Enroll- ment in Institutions of Higher Education Compared with Population Aged 18-24: United States, Fall 1950 to Fall 1973," p. 75. 26StatisticaT Abstract of the United States 1973, No. 157, "Public and Private Sch001s - Number. by Level} 1930 t0 1974." P- 104- 27Louis Emmerij, Can The School Build a New Social_0rder? (Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, 1974), p. 40. This study covers the following countries: Austria, Germany (Federal Republic of), Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Finland, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Netherlands, Protugal, England, Wales, Sweden, Switzerland, Yugoslavia, United States, Canada, Japan. 28Ibid., p. 38. 2916id., p. 61. CHAPTER III THE CONVENTIONAL INTERPRETATION OF AMERICAN EDUCATION The conventional analysis of the role of education in the United States maintains that the expansion of fermal education has been dic- tated by two principle ferces. First, formal education has been viewed as a means of reconciling many of the nation's internal social conflicts. Schools are credited with having strengthened the democratic form of government, creating greater social and economic equality, increasing social mobility, and diminishing poverty. Schools have contributed towards these objectives in the past and they are expected to continue doing so in the future. Second, formal education has played a vital role in the development of the world's most advanced industrial society. It has done so by providing the nation with the highly skilled work ferce needed to keep that society moving in a progressive direction. The tremendous expansion of formal education, therefbre, has evolved in order to meet the democratizing and technical needs demanded by an economically expanding, industrialized nation. Implicit in the conventional analysis of education is a concep-‘ tion of American society as a social system in which various individuals and organizations perform specific, specialized tasks which are func- tional for the maintenance and prosperity of the system and for the constituent elements of the system. Formal education, like other parts of the system, change in order to improve society as a whole and to benefit the lives of individuals within that society. 32 33 ngggggtization and Education After the Revolutionary War many of the nation's feunding fathers expressed the viewpoint that education was a key to protecting the liberties won in the war and to preserving a democratic nation. Unless all groups of people understood the rights and privileges they had won well enough to exercise them in an intelligent manner, the democratic ferm of government could easily deteriorate into a tyranny controlled by a privileged few.1 This sentiment has been echoed several times throughout the history of the United States. In the early 1800s one of the central tenets of Jacksonian Democracy was the belief that the public schools, rather than elitist private schools, should provide the leadership 2 "essential to a democratic nation. Cubberley wrote, in 1909, that the public school system was "the prime essential to good democratic "3 In 1947 the President's Commission government and national progress. on Higher Education advised, "Many thoughtful observers are convinced that one of America's urgent needs today isa continued commitment to the principles of democracy. . . .It becomes then, an urgent task fer our scholars and our teachers to restate and revivify the ideals of democracy."4 The rhetoric of "preserving and strengthening democracy" is not as frequently found in current discussions of education. Today we talk about "equality“ and "equal educational opportunity.“ This is indicative of a slight shift in the educational discourse. However, an explicit concern fer equality in education, and the role of education in creating greater equality throughout society is not altogether new. Education has long been viewed as a mechanism for creating greater 34 equality. Many contemporary observers credit education with having contributed significantly to greater social and economic equality in the past, and for being able to do so in the fUture. Horace Mann stated, early in the 18805, that the common school movement in particular, and the expansion of free public schooling for all people in general, would serve as the "great equalizer of the 5 While condition of men--the balance wheel of the social machinery." recognizing the existence of inequality and the fact that family back- ground has influenced people's education and their position within the social structure, the conventional view of education maintains that education has performed an equalizing role. In a 1955 report, written primarily by Lawrence Cremin, the National Education Association and the American Association of School Administrators argued, A source of profound strength lies in the American edu- cational heritage. . .designed especially for their task, public schools have stood--and now stand--as great well- springs of freedom, equality, and self-government.6 Commanger offered similar praise for schools: No other people ever demanded so much of its schools. . . None other was ever so well served by its schools and its educators. . . .To the schools went the momentous re- sponsibility of. . inculcating democracy, materialism, and equalitarianism7 Historians and educators are not the only ones who have credited the schools with having served as an equalizing force. Bendix and Lipset also maintain that the expansion of formal education has been an important equalizer. 35 , Indeed, the state-supported universities are another testi- mony_ to the ingrained equalitarianism of American society . . .This social as well as economic accessibility of higher education. . .has had the effect of making the American university an avenue of social mobility and an institutional bulwark of ideological equalitarianism. Some observers have been critical of the schools for not doing more to combat the inequalities which have existed in our society. But they still place much faith in the ability of schools to do the job. The President's Commission on Higher Education stated in 1947, We have proclaimed our faith in education as a means of equalizing the conditions of men. But there is grave danger that our present policy will make it an instru- ment for creating the very inequalities it was designed to prevent. If the ladder of educational opportunity rises high at the doors of some youth and scarcely rises at all at the doors of others, while at the same time fermal education is made a prerequisite to occupational and social advance, then education may become the means, not of eliminating race and class distinctions, but of deepening and solidifying them. It is obvious,_then,_that free and universal access to education, in terms ofithe interest, ability, and need of the student, must be a major goal in American edUca- tion. (Emphasis included in original]? The Commission went on to reason, “Indeed, an ideally adequate program of higher education undoubtedly would result in a more even distribution of income as well as greater national productivity.10 In 1961 economist Theodore W. Schultz stated, A strong welfare goal of our community is to reduce the unequal distribution of personal income among individuals and families. Our community relied heavily on progressive income and inheritance taxation. Given public revenue from these sources, it may well be true that public investment in human capital, notably that entering into general educa- tion is an effective gnd efficient set of expenditures for attaining this goal .1 36 The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which has been highly critical of the federal government and other organizations, including schools, for their failure to move more expeditiously towards the realization of equal opportunity,12 still maintains that, "School integration remains the touchstone of all racial equality."13 In addition to creating greater social and economic equality, schools have also been credited with increasing social mobility, pri- 14 marily in an upward direction. In reference to the role of schooling in the latter half of the eighteenth century Cremin wrote: . . .common schools increased opportunity; they taught morality and citizenship; they encouraged a talented leadership; they maintained social mobility; they gro- moted social responsiveness to social conditions.1 Not only has there been upward mobility, but there has been much long distance movement up the social ladder and schools have been an important contributing factor. The high level of popular education in the United States has provided the disadvantaged lower strata with out- standing opportunities fbr long distance 1nobility.16 Albert Shankar, admittedly not a disinterested party to the educa- tional enterprise, summarized what has traditionally been viewed as perhaps the major contribution of education when he wrote, "Masses of immigrants, the poor, the illiterate have been educated and, through education, have achieved unprecedented upward social mobility."17 In addition to strengthening democracy, creating greater social and economic equality, and increasing social mobility, it is argued that schools have also contributed towards the reduction of poverty. 37 Many educational historians maintain that schools have assimilated the immigrants, the minorities, and the poor from all groups, into the mainstream of the middle class.18 Economists and other labor experts. argue that education has played a vital role in making individuals more productive workers and in increasing the total productivity of our economic system. 1 9 Studies commissioned by the federal government have long emphasized the links between the lack of a decent education and poverty. In order to reduce poverty, and to solve a host of other social problems, it has been argued over the years that formal education must be expanded.20 Two principle factors account for why education has, in the past, and can, in the future, exercise a democratizing influence. First, it is argued, the basis of the distribution process has become, over time, increasingly based on universalistic criteria. People are rewarded more on the basis of achieved rather than ascribed characteristics.21 A rigid class structure based on clear cut status distinctions has not evolved in the United States for a number of reasons which are con- sidered to be unique to American life. There is no feudal past or fermal aristocratic tradition. More than other nations the United States has valued social mobility. An equalitarian ideology has been an inte- gral part of the American world view. The rising standards of living and a materialistic orientation have f0restalled the establishment of a fermal class structure. The wide distribution of consumer goods serves to blur class distinctions. It has even been argued that now "Conspic-‘ uous consumption under these conditions extends to the lower strata of society.“22 This does not mean that ascribed characteristics have no influence .ll..l|l|ll|'|li [Ill-Ill! 38 at all in determining where people are located in the stratification system. But being born into the right family is no longer enough. What a person accomplishes on the basis of a set of objective univer- salistic criteria is more important than a person's family background. As Blau and Duncan concluded, . . .the American occupational structure is largely governed by universalistic criteria of perfbrmance and achievement, with the notable exception of race. The close relation- ship between educational attainment and occupational achieve- ment, with education being the most important determinant of occupational status that could be discovered testifies to this universalism.23 Formal education has emerged as the primary factor in determin- ing an individual's location in the American occupational structure. The expansion of educational opportunity coupled with an increasing emphasis on universalistic criteria, particularly educational achieve- ment, results in greater social mobility. Formal education, therefore, exercises an important democratizing influence on American society. The emphasis on achieved rather than ascribed characteristics leads to a more fluid social structure. Not only does this benefit those born into low status families, but it is functional fer society as a whole because it permits society to more fully exploit its human potential. Rigid class distinctions which restrict mobility prevent members of the lower classes from developing their abilities and from contributing to society. But in the United States, Universalistic principles have penetrated deep into the fabric of modern society and given rise to high rates of occupational mobility. The improvements in opportunities for social mobility resulting from the wider application of universalistic standards permit greater utilization of society's human potential, and they have important implications for the stability of demcracy.24 39 It is acknowledged that the educational opportunities available to a person are often dependent on that person's family background and that social status is frequently transmitted by way of the educational opportunities parents can provide their children. In general, however, the conventional perspective maintains that as a result of the growing predominance of achieved characteristics (particularly formal education) over ascribed status in the distributive process, and the opening up of educational opportunities for greater numbers of people from all seg- ments of the population, the expansion of formal education has been and will continue to be a democratizing influence. It is an influence which benefits many individuals and it serves to strengthen the social system as a whole. The second reason why education is able to perform a democrati- zing function lies in the human capital analysis of education and neo- classical economic theory regarding the functioning of the Tabor market.25 Human capital theory asserts that people should be analyzed as a form of capital. We invest money in capital for the purpose of realizing a return or profit at some time in the future. Education is a form of investment in pe0p1e which yields a return for the individuals (the private rate of return) in whom the investment is made and far society as a whole (the social rate of return). It is assumed that personal income is a function of the skills a person brings to the market. Since education provides people with those skills, an increase in education results in an increase in personal income as well as in the productivity of people. If there is a shortage of skilled workers in a particular area of the labor market, wages will rise to attract more workers. If 40 there is a labor surplus, wages will decline. Eventually, an equili- brium is reached where workers are paid a wage equivalent to their marginal product, or the amount they add to the total economic output. Increasing the educational level of low income workers will have three beneficial effects. First, more education raises their level of skill and, therefore. their income will rise. .Second, the number of low skilled workers declines so their wages will increase. Finally, the supply of high skilled workers increases which lowers their wages. The net result is that total output rises and the distribution of income becomes more equal.26 The labor market, therefore, functions in the samemanner as markets for other goods and services. Open competi- tion and the laws of supply and demand, it is argued, regulate the allocation and cost of labor. The argument that increasing formal education will increase the wages of low income workers and will contribute to the productivity of society in general is based on the statistical correlation between education and income, and the inverse relationship between education 27 and unemployment. In Becker's words: Probably the most impressive piece of evidence is that more highly educated and skilled persons almost always tend to earn more than others. . .inequality in the distribution of earnings and income is generally positively related to inequality in education and other training. . .unemploy- ment tends to be strongly related, usually inversely, to education.28 Because income is a function of the skills a person possesses and because skill depends largely on education, former Secretary of Labor, Willard Wirtz, concluded, "the difference in educational attainment is a prime reason for the income differences."29 41 The conventional perspective maintains that as the amount of know- ledge increases and as the skills required in the occupational structure become more complex, formal education becomes even more important in determining one's position in the world of work and in society in general. The next section will show how the democratizing and technical functions of education are highly interrelated, according to this perspective. Technical Demands and Education The development of our modern industrialized society, particularly in the last few decades, is characterized by an exponential increase in knowledge and the application of that knowledge to the productive system. As a result of the rapid increase in technological innovations ever greater levels of skill are required in the occupational structure. The proportion of unskilled jobs is decreasing while the proportion of highly skilled positions is increasing. Jobs throughout the occupational structure are constantly being upgraded in terms of the skills and abil- ities needed to be able to perform the requisite tasks. As a result of changes which had occurred since World War II the Senate Subcommittee on Employment and Manpower (the Clark Subcommittee) concluded in 1963, . . .that a complex revolution is underway in the kind of labor force needed to man the American economy. Because the terms of human labor are being so profoundly altered, the subcommittee called it a 'Manpower Revolution.‘3o One consequence of this "revolution" is that people must spend more years in school in order to learn the necessary skills to keep our modern industrialized society functioning properly.31 The notion that the growth of knowledge and the increasing tech- nical skill requirements of occupations requires greater amounts of 42 f0rma1 education has long been firmly entrenched in conventional ana- lysis of American society. In 1909 Cubberley wrote: Along with these changes (industrialism) there has come not only a tremendous increase in the quantity of knowledge, but also a demand for a large increase in the amount of knowledge necessary to enable one to meet the changed conditions of modern life. The kind of knowledge needed, too, has fundamentally changed. The ability to read and write and cipher no longer distinguishes the educated from the uneducated man. A man must have better, broader, and a different kind of knowledge than did Bis parents if he is to succeed under modern conditions.3 The National Education Association argued in 1910 that "Educa- tional standards, applicable in an age of handicraft, presumably need radical change in the present day of complex and highly specialized industrial development."33 These concepts, and even the language used to express them are strikingly similar to the arguments made in describing the post World War II “Manpower Revolution." J. Herbert Holloman, then Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology in the U.S. Department of Commerce testified befbre the Clark Subcommittee that: Because of the expanding influence of technology and its greatly increased complexity, there is a need today not only for more technical people but for better and more advanced training. . . .Finally, technical competence in management, entrepreneurship, and labor is becoming in- creasingly crucial. Effective management in this age of rapid technological change requires not only the traditional business training in marketing, production, personnel, and other socio-economic disciplines, but today it also requires, more than ever, increased training and grounding in tech- nical disciplines and the capacity, developed by education and training, to adapt existing technical knowledge to the needs of society. . . .And obv10usly as the tasks of labor become more complex and sophaaticated, workers need to be better trained and educated. 43 In his testimony before that subcommitte, Charles C. Killingsworth, professor of economics, labor and industrial relations, stated, The most fundamental conclusion that emerges from my analysis is that automation and the changing pattern of consumer wants have greatly increased the importance of investment in human beings as a factor in economic ,growth. More investment in plant and equipment, with- out very large increases in our investment of human beings, seems certain to enlarge the surplus of underdeveloped manpower and to create a shortage of the highly developed manpower needed to design, install, and man modern pro- ‘duction facilities.35 In reporting its findings regarding the impact of technological change, the Clark Subcommittee concluded, Underlying and exceeding most of these other adjustment problems spawned by technological change is the constant elevation of skill and educational requirements necessary for employment.36 Clark Kerr and his associates emphasized the demands which tech- nological change has placed on formal education in terms of the logic of industrial development. Industrialization results in the creation of greater varieties of skills, greater specialization, and further refinements in the division of labor. "The science and technology of the industrial society is never static; it generates continual, rapid, widespread changes in production methods and products. which in turn create frequent changes in the skills, responsibilities and occupations "37 of the work force. As a result of such perpetual changes, "Indus- trialization requires an educational system functionally related to the skills and professions imperative to its technology."38 The work of modern industrialized societies is conducted primarily by organizations because, it is argued, they are the most rational and 44 efficient forms of social grouping.39 The most rational and efficient form of organization is bureaucracy.40 In order to efficiently increase production and to improve the quality of goods and services in such a complex industrialized system, according to this perspective, work must be structured bureaucratically. As Kerr and his associates stated: The variety of skills, responsibilities, and working conditions at the work place of enterprises requires an ordering or a hierarchy. There are successive levels of authority of managers and the managed, as well as con- siderable specialization of function at each level of the hierarchy of the work place.41 Modern conditions require that organizations be governed by a f0rmal set of rules. Specific functional tasks are assigned to indi- viduals on the basis of their particular positions in the organization. Individuals obtain those positions on the basis of objective measures of competency. Levels of authority are delineated to insure that each function is properly carried out. The technical demands of industrial society dictate the bureaucratic organization of work. In order for a society to survive, a consensus must be achieved regarding how its members interact and how that society is to perform its.maintenance and production functions. The division of labor in general and bureaucracy in particular perform a moral as well as a technical function. As Durkheim maintained, the organic solidarity which emerges from occupational differentiation would serve as the 42 The influence of Durkheim on con- social cement of modern society. temporary analysts is apparent in the following statement by Kerr and his associates: 45 The industrial society, as any established society, develops a distinctive consensus which relates indi- viduals and groups to each other and provides a common body of ideas, beliefs, and value judgements integrated into a whole. There must be a consensus to permit the industrial society to function. Various f0rms of the industrial society may create some distinctive features of an ideology, but all industrial societies have common values. Rooted in the tradition of functionalist sociological theory, it is argued that the bureaucratic organization of work has evolved to meet the needs of a social system. Increasing knowledge, the demand for greater efficiency and productivity, and the need for a moral or ideological consensus among the members of that system dictate changes in the occupational structure. In turn, the educational requirements are necessarily upgraded. The technical and democratizing functions of education are closely interrelated in the conventional analysis, and they become even more interrelated as knowledge continues to expand and the skill requirements of jobs continue to increase. As formal education becomes a more important factor in preparing people for the world of work, it becomes more important as a democratizing force. If greater levels of skill are required on the job and those skills are obtained in school, upward social mobility depends more and more on a person's educational attain- ment. The expansion of formal education in the United States according to this perspective has served to provide the nation with the skilled manpower required to fuel a modern industrial society and to strengthen the democratic way of life. Throughout the history of the United States educational innovations 46 such as the common school, the comprehensive high school, land grant universities, junior colleges, etc., have all been justified and praised because of the opportunities they opened up for pe0p1e from all social classes. Particularly because the level of skills required on the job has steadily increased, the expansion of formal education has been vital to the economic growth of the nation and for strengthening American democracy. "The establishment of free schools for all the children of all the people, 'it is argued,’ forms one of the greatest social reforms."44 It is acknowledged that the influence of family background has not been completely eliminated. A5 Howard 5. Becker stated: Where a society contains disadvantaged groups, education is one of the possible means of mobility fer them just as it is one of the means by which members of the dominant group maintain their status. 5 Bendix and Lipset recognized the importance of family background in determining the kind of education and, ultimately, the kind of a job a person attains: If an individual comes from a working-class family, he will typically receive little education or vocational advice; while he attends school his job plans for the future will be vague and when he leaves school he is likely to take the first available job which he can find. Thus, the poverty, lack of education, absence of personal 'contacts,‘ lack of planning, and failure to explore fully the avail- able job opportunities that characterize the working-class family are handed down from generation to generation. The same culmination of factors, which in the working class creates a series of mounting disadvantages, works to the advantage of a child coming from a well-to-do family. The social status of parents and the education of their children is, therefore, closely related both to the nature of the latter's girst jobs and to the pattern of their later careers.4 lllliillillllllltil i Ii II V Illli i III!!! ill-1“! .' ‘l‘l‘l'll 47 These facts, however, do not shake their faith in schooling. As indicated earlier, to Bendix and Lipset schools still serve as a ”bulwark of equalitarianism." In recent years volumes of books and articles have been pub- lished which document the relationship between family background and educational attainment and the influence of family background on income and occupation. Compared to middle-class whites, racial and ethnic minorities, and poor and working-class whites have less money 47 spent on their elementary and secondary education and on their college education.48 They receive less encouragement and are not expected to perform academically as well as middle-class whites by 49 50 their teachers, parents, and peers.51 They are less likely to attend college and are less likely to graduate if they do attend than 52 middle-class whites of comparable ability. Those who earn a bachelor's 53 degree or a Ph.D.54 earn less than their white, middle-class counter- parts.55 For some reason schools seem to have been unable, in the last few decades, to serve racial and ethnic minorities, and other poor and working-class people, as well as they supposedly served earlier generations of Americans. The school, however, is still regarded as the key institution which can provide the opportunity for people to 56 If more time, "make it" in the mainstream of American society. effort, and money is invested, it is argued, schools can still perform their democratizing role. In her review of the literature in this area, Sarane S. Boocock admitted that “the major determinants of school performance are fac- tors external to the school. That is, things outside the school matter more than the things inside in explaining what and how well children 48 learn."57 But she does not give up her faith in schools, Finally, to the pessimists who claim that the learning system is beyond help, we can answer that neither inte- gration nor compensatory education nor any of the other major educational reforms proposed in the last few years has been given a fair test--which means that we must introduce such reforms in new ways and on scales that re- flect accurately and in depth. We have not demonstrated that the most intelligent ideas f0r change in the learning system cannot succeed. Perhaps they can. Now would be a good time to find out."53 Other observers, however, are not so confident. Spurred, in part, by the same evidence which motivates some people to call f0r more of the traditional solutions, a growing vanguard of critics have re-examined the basic assumptions of this conventional perspective. As a result, the thinking which has predominated both inside and out- side of academia regarding the role of education in the United States has been seriously challenged. This challenge is the subject of the next chapter. REFERENCES 1Harry G. Good and James D. Teller, A HiStor ’of American Educa- tion (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1973) p. 77-101. Paul Leicester Ford (ed.), "Notes on Virginia," Thomas Jefferson, Works, Vol. 4 (New York, 1904), cited in Colin Greer, The Great School'Legggd'lNeWTYork: Basic Books, 1972) p. 15. 2Ellwood P. Cubberley, Public Education in the United States (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1919). .Lawrence A. Cremin, The Amer1can Common School: An Historical Conception (New York: TeaEhers College Press, Columbia, University, 1951) cited in Greer, loc. cit., p. 16. 3Cubberley, loc. cit., p. 18-19, cited in Greer, loc. cit., p. 16. 4Higher Education for American Democracy, Vol. 1, President's Commission on Higher Education (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1947) p. 13. 5Quotation cited in, School Oesegregation in Ten Communities, a Report of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights‘TWashington, D.C.: Commission on Civil Rights, 1973), p. 12. 6Educationa1 Policies Commission, "Public Education and the Future of America" (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association and American Association of School Administrators, 1955), cited in Greer, loc. cit., p. 13. 7Henry Steele Commager, The American Mind (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950) cited in Greer, 10c. cit., p. 22. 8Seymour Martin Lipset and Reinhard Bendix, Social Mobility in Industrial Society (Berkeley: University of California Press, l959)p. 101. 9Higher Education for American Democracy, loc. cit., p. 36. 'OIbid., Vol. II. p. 11. nTheodore W. Schultz, "Investment in Human Capital," American Economic Review, Vol. 51, (1961), p. 16. 12The'Federal'Civil Ri hts Enforcement Effort, October 1970, and three follow up reports pubiisfied in May 1971, November 1971 and January 1973. See also, Twenty Years After Brown: The Shadows of the Past, June 1974. Each of these reports were publishedey the U.S. Government Printing Office in Washington, D.C. 49 50 13 p. 87. 14Peter M. Blau and Otis Dudley Duncan, The American occupationa1 StrUcture (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1971). Eli Ginzburg, "Education and National Efficiency in the USA," in A. H. Halsey, Jean Floud, and C. Arnold Anderson (eds.),‘EdOCatioh,’ECoggmy, and Society (New York: The Free Press, 1961). Clark Kerr, John T. Dunlop, Frederick H. Harbison, and Charles A. Myers, "The Logic of Industrial- ism," in Bertram Silverman and Murray Yanowitch, The Worker in ”Post-Industrial" Capitalism (New York: The Free Press, 1974). 15Cremin, The Transformation of the School (New York: Knopf, 1961) p. vii-ix, 3-223'and"ThelGenius of AmerTCan Education (New York: Vintage, 1965). Cited in Greer, loc. cit., p. 17. 16 17mm Shanker, "The Big Lie About the Public Schools," ing! York Times, May 9, 1971 U.F.T. Column, cited in Greer, 10c. cit., p. 21. 18Bernard Bailyn, Education in the Forming of American Society (New York: Vintage, 19601? 'Cbmmager,‘loc. cit., Cremin, 10c. Cit., Good and Teller, loc. cit. 19John Bates Clark, The Distribution of Wealth (New York: MacMillan, 1924). Gary Becker, Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, With Special Reference_to Education (New York: Columbia University Press, 1964). Edward F. Denison, "Education and Economic Productivity," in Seymour Harris (Ed.), Education and Public Polic (Berkeley: McCutchen, 1965). Kerr, et. all, 10c. cit., Schultz, 10c. cit. Twenty Years After Br0wn:’ The Shadows of the Past, loc. cit., Blau and Duncan, loc. cit., p. 435. 20The Manpower Revolution: Its Policy,Consequences, excerpts from Senate Hearings before the Clark Subcommittee on Employment and Manpower (Garden City: Anchor Books, 1966). Higher Education for American Democracy, loc. cit. U.S. Riot Conmission, Report of the 10 al A is i (New York: Bantam Books, 1968). .Technology and the American Economy, Report of the National Commission on Technology, Automation, and Economic Progress (Washington,D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966). 21Blau and Duncan, loc. cit. Lipset and Bendix, 10c. cit.’ Ralph H. Turner, “Modes of Ascent Through Education,“ American Socio- logical Review, 1960. 22Blau and Duncan, loc. cit., p. 438. 23Ibid., p. 241. 24Ibid., p. 431. 25See Reference 19. 51 26Lester C. Thurow, "Education and Economic Equality,“ The Public Interest, Summer, 1972, p. 67. 27Becker, loc. cit., p. 2. Charles C. Killingsworth, "Automation, Jobs, and Manpower: The Case for Structural Unemployment," in The Manpower Revolution: Its Policy Consequences, loc. cit., p. 108:l15. Willard Wirtz, testimony before the Clark Subcommittee in The Mgppower Revolution: Its Policy Conseguences, loc. cit., p. 383. 28Becker, loc. cit., p. 2. 29mm, 1oc. cit., p. 383. 30 p. vii. 311hg_flggpgygrRevolgtion:_Its Policy Implications, loc. cit., Kerr, Et. al., loc cit., Harold F. Clark and Harold S. Sloan, Class- rooms on Mainstreet NEW York: Teachers College Press, 1966). The Manpower Revolution: Its Policy Consequences, loc. cit., 32Ellwood P. Cubberley, Changing Conceptions of Education (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1909) p. 18-19, cited in Richard C. Edwards, Michael Reich, Thomas E. Weisskopf (Eds.), The Capitalist System (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972). p. 185-186. 33National Education Association, Report of the Committee on the Place of Industry in Public Education, 1910, p. 6-7, cited in ~ThejCapitalist System, loc. cit. 34J. Herbert Holloman, "Scientific and Technical Manpower: A Key to Economic Growth," The Manpower Revolution: Its Policy Conse- quences, loc. cit., p. 272-273. 35ki11ingsworth, loc. cit., p. 115. 36 p. 241. 37 38 The Manpower Revolution: Its Policy Implications, 10c. cit., Kerr, et a1., loc cit., p. 71. Ibid.. p. 72. 39Peter F. Drucker, The Aggof Discontinuity (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1969). Amitai Etzioni, Modern Organizations (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964). 40Peter M. Blau and Marshall W. Meyer, Bureaucracy in Modern Society (New York: Random House, Inc., 1971). Max Weber,—“Bureaucracy," in H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, From Max Weber: Essays in Socio- logy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1973). 41Kerr, et. a1., loc. cit., p. 73. 52 42Emile Durkheim, The Division of Labor in Society (New York: The Free Press, 1966). 1 43Kerr, et. a1., loc. cit., p. 75-76. 44 45Howard S. Becker, "Schools and Systems of Stratification," in Education, Economy, and Society, loc. cit., p. 103. 46 47Patricia C. Sexton, Education and Income: Inequalities in Our Public Schools (New York: Viking, 1961). ChrTStopherTJenCRs, et. a1., InequalitylHarper & Row Publishers, 1972). Good and Teller, loc. cit., p. 119 Lipset and Bendix, 10c. cit., p. 198. .. 48W. Lee Hanson and Burton Weisbrod, Benefits, Costs and Finances of Higher Education (Chicago: Markham, 1969). *Douglas M1 Windham, Education Eguality and Income Redistribution (Lexington: Heath, 1970). Jencks, et. a1., 10c. cit. 49Ray C. Rist, "Student Class and Teacher Expectations: The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy in Ghetto Education," Harvard Educgtjonal Review, August, 1970. Roger Hughes Kariger, "The Relation of Lane Grouping to the Socioeconomic Status of Parents in Three Junior High Schools," Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1962. 50W. H. Sewell and V. P. Shah, "Social Class, Parental Encourage- ment and Educational Aspirations,“ American Journal of Sociolo , March, 1968. Alan B. Wilson, "Residential Segreation of Socia Classes and Aspirations of High School Boys," in Seymour Martin Lipset and Reinhard Bendix (Eds.), Class, Status and Power (New York: The Free Press, 1966). H. H. Hyman, "The value Systems of Different Classes," Class, Status,gand Power, loc. cit. 5iWilbur B. Brookover, Richard J. Gigliotti, Ronald P. Henderson, and Jeffrey Schneider, Elementary School Social Environments and Achievement (East Lansing: College of Urban Development, Michigan State University, 1973). James Coleman, The Adolescent Society (New York: The Free Press, 1961). Ralph H. Thrner, The social Context of Ambition (San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1964). 52Bruce K. Eckland, "Academic Ability, Higher Education, and Occupational Mobility," American Sociological Review, October, 1965. William G. Spady, "Educational Mobility and Access: Growth and Para- doxes,“ American Journal of Sociology;_November, 1967. Dale Wolfle, "Educational Opportunity, Measured Intelligence, and Social Background," in Education, Econo and Societ loc. cit. Social Indicators 1973 (Was ng on, . .: . . vernmen Printing Oftice, 1973) p. 106. 53Blau and Duncan, lgcg_cit. Ernest Haveman and Patricia S. West, They_Went to College: The College Graduate in America Today (New York: HarcourtTBrace. l952). 53 54Diane Crane, "Social Class Origin and Academic Success: The Influence of Two stratification Systems on Academic Careers," Socio- logy of Education, 1969. Lowell L. Hargens and W. O. Hagstrom, Sponsored and Contest Mobility of American Academic Scientists," Sociology_of Education, 1967. 55For a more complete review of the literature on the inequali- ties in education see Wilbur B. Brookover and Edsel Erickson, Socio- logy of Education (The Dorsey Press, 1975). 56Nicolaus Mills (ed.), The Great School Bus Controversy(New York: Teachers College Press,T1973) see particularly Theodbre Hesburgh's contribution. 57Sarane S. Boocock, An Introduction to the Sociology_of Learning. (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin Company, 1972) p. 309. 58Ibid., p. 329. CHAPTER IV THE CHALLENGE FROM THE LEFT The conventional analysis of education has been challenged from a variety of directions. Spurred in part by recent research on the inequalities of education, noted at the end of the previous chapter, many critics argue that the effects of schooling have been precisely the opposite of what the conventional analysis maintains. A general consensus has emerged regarding the weaknesses of its basic assumptions and conclusions, and an alternative explanation referred to in this study as a class perspective, of the role of schooling and for the expansion of schooling, has emerged. The central themes of this per- spective are: 1. Rather than viewing American society as a social system composed of functionally interrelated groups which work together to expand the total "pie" for the benefit of society in general, American society is considered to be comprised of a set of conflicting forces which compete with each, other for their own share of a limited set of resources. 2. The dynamics of the class structure rather than the skills and abilities (marginal productivity) of individuals, account for the unequal distribution of income, wealth, and other rewards offered in American society. Rather than functioning as a democratizing force, school has served to legitimize and stabilize that class structure and to perpetuate 54 55 inequality from generation to generation. Although schooling has contributed towards the development of the technical skills required in a modern industrialized society, technical training has been a secondary concern relative to the social needs of various interest groups which have been met by an expanding educational apparatus: a. Employers have been provided with a work force which has inculcated values and attitudes that are supportive of the prevailing social relations of production; b. Various occupational groups have been able to limit entry into their field, thus maintaining the market value of their services and their privileged positions in society. Educational requirements of jobs and educational attainment of workers have reinfOrced each other in an upward moving direction, independently of any absolute level of technical skills required on jobs or associated with a particular amount of education. Society has defined education as a "good thing" to have so people spend more time in school. Employers respond by raising educational requirements because they have a better educated work force to choose from and, when given a choice, they prefer to hire those who are rela- tively better educated. In turn, each generation of workers gets more education in order to maintain or improve their competitive position. The mutual reinforcement of these trends results in a continual expansion in formal education which has little to do with the actual changes in the skill 56 requirements of the jobs. 5. The expansion of formal education and educational reform in general are not likely to resolve social problems, such as inequality and poverty, which many people have long believed could be solved through education. The consensus around these themes has emerged from three general directions. The most fundamental challenge is the radical critique of the conventional analysis of education and of American society in general. A second challenge can be identified in the response to human capital theory. A third challenge is the alternative education movement consisting primarily of the free school and deschooling philosophies. These three approaches are based on somewhat different assumptions and they advocate widely divergent soluti0ns to educational and social pro- blems. But the thrust of these analyses regarding the role of education in the United States and the factors which account for the expansion of education constitute a distinct alternative to the conventional perspec- tive. The Radical Analysis of Education The radical perspective grows out of the Marxist critique of capitalism, particularly the Marxist theories of class, stratification, and division of labor.1 Marx argued that the general character of society; the social, political, and spiritual processes, is determined primarily by the mode of production of material life, or the economic structure. The stratification system of society is a function of the social rela- tion of production, and an individual's position in society is determined by his or her relationship to the means of production. According to Marx IIIMMV.|IMVVIII|VI Vii 57 such factors as education, politics, law, and religion all exercise important influence on the shape of society. But they are super- structural factors which serve primarily an ideological function of legitimizing the basic foundation of society, that being the economic structure. Class conflict, according to Marx, has been the central dynamic of all human societies. Under capitalism there are two principle classes which relate to each other in a state of conflict and struggle; the capitalists who own the means of production and the workers who are forced to sell their labor power to the capitalists in order to make a living. The driving force of capitalism is the process of capital accumu- lation. Capital is accumulated or profits are earned by capitalists by expropriating the surplus value created by workers. The relation- ship between capitalists and workers, therefore, is an exploitative one in which the capitalist class benefits from the labor of the working class. The primary interest of the capitalist is to increase the sur- plus value created by workers in order to maximize the accumulation of capital or to make the highest possible profits. The use value of the product, the efficiency with which it can be produced, and the condi- tions workers must endure in the production process are irrelevant, except to the extent that these factors can be manipulated to increase the surplus value accruing to the capitalist. The Evolution of Work and the Consequences of Education The radical analysis of education acknowledges that formal educa- tion has played a vital role in the development of capitalism, but in a 58 far different manner than the conventional analysis maintains. The main function of education has been to legitimize, in the minds of the workers, the social relations of production and the class system in general. It has done so primarily by inculcating workers with the appropriate personality and attitudinal characteristics, that enable the capitalist class to maintain control of the work process and the surplus generated by that process. Social control has been the primary function performed by schooling and the expansion of education has evolved in response to the growing need on the part of capitalist for more refined methods of social control in order to maintain the system. Essentially, this has meant reconciling more and more workers to a1 work setting increasingly characterized by a wage labor system imbedded within a hierarchical division of 1abor.2 The division of labor, the bureaucratic organization of work, and virtually all other characteristics of the production process have evolved, it is argued, in response to the capitalists' need for main- taining control of that process in order to maximize the accumulation of capital, not because of any technical superiority associated with these structural changes.3 Throughout the period of capitalist develop- ment it is acknowledged that many new tasks have been added to the pro- duction process. Some of these tasks require highly skilled people to perform them. But, in general, the drive for capital accumulation has resulted in the breaking down of complex tasks into relatively more simple manual operations. In Marx's wordszi By decomposition of handicrafts, by specialization of the instruments of labour, by the formation of detail labourers, and by grouping and combining the latter into a single mechanism, division of labour in manufacture creates a 59 qualitative gradation, and a quantitative proportion in the social process of production; it consequently creates a definite organization of the labour of society, and thereby develops at the same time new productive forces in society. In its specific capitalist form--and under the given conditions, it could take no other form than a capitalistic one--manufacture is but a particular method of begetting relative surplus-value, or of augmenting at the expense of the labourer the self-expansion of capital-- usually called social wealth. . . .It increases the social productive power of labour, not only for the benefit of the capitalist instead of for that of the labourer, but it does this by crippling the individual labourers. It creates new conditions for the lordship of capital over labour. If, therefore, on the one hand, it presents itself historically as a progress and as a necessary phase in the economic development of society, on the other hand, it is a refined and civilized method of exploitation.4 The decomposition of tasks coupled with the bureaucratic organi- zation of work removes knowledge and control of the productive process from those actually involved in production; and places that knowledge and control in the hands of those at the top of the pyramid, the capitalists. Stephen Marglin summarized the function of these two changes in the organization of work in the following words: Rather than providing more output for the same inputs, these innovations in work organization were introduced 50 that the capitalist got himself a larger share of the pie at the expense of the worker, and it is only the sub- seguent growth in the size of the pie that has obscured the class interest which was at the root of these innova- tions. The social function of hierarchical work organi- zation is not technical efficiency, but accumulation.5 The implementation of modern machinery represents one change in the productive process which has evolved, ostensibly, for the purposes of expanding production, improving the efficiency of production and increasing the total wealth of society in general. But there are important social implications involved in the use of modern machinery 60 according to the radical interpretation. As Braverman argued: Machinery comes into the world not as the servant of 'humanity,’ but as the instrument of those to whom the accumulation of capital gives the ownership of the ma- chines. The capacity of humans to control the labor process through machinery is seized upon by management from the beginning of capitalism as the prime means whereby production may be controlled not by the direct producer but by the owners and representatives of capital. Thus, in addition to its teChnical fUnctidn of increasing the productivity of labor--which would be a mark of machinery under any social system--machinery also has in the capitalist system the function of divesting the mass of workers of their cgntrol over their own labor [Emphasis included in original] The radical challenge maintains that conventional theory ignores important social dimensions of work, particularly the primacy of capital accumulation and the exploitative relationships which result from that driving force, while accepting the technological justification for changes in the work process along with the notion that all groups of people benefit from those changes. Rather than viewing capitalism as one unique form of a modern industrialized society, conventional analysis draws conclusions about industrialism in general from its observations of capitalist societies. By failing to take into consideration the social dimensions of work which are inherent in a capitalist society but not in all industrial societies, the conventional analysis misses the most salient defining characteristics of American life. While a variety of social control mechanisms have been established within the work process itself, the socialization process starts long before people enter the world of work. Schools, in particular, con- stitute one institution which prepares people early in their lives for their eventual role in the production process. The expansion of formal 61 education, it is argued, has been motivated not just by technical con- siderations but also by changes in the noncognitive characteristics required on the job. The increasing bureaucratization of work requires a labor force which accepts the social relations of production inherent in that kind of organization and education has helped fill that need.7 The radical critique also challenges the notion that-the increasing importance of education in determining where one is located in the occu- pational structure is evidence of a shift in the distributive process from ascribed to achieved characteristics. Education, achievement tests, and other so-called objective indicators of ability, it is aruged, are clearly biased along class lines. By distributing privilege on such criteria, class position is transmitted from generation to generation in a way that is perceived as an open, fair, and objective method of allocating the available rewards. As a result, individuals willingly accept their share of the rewards and they view the functioning of the overall system as basically legitimate.8 Education and the Rationalization of the Economy Radical theory has stimulated much of the recent revisionist history of the United States. Guided by this perspective, the relation- ship between economic developments and education, and the influence of business on education have been re-examined. This section will summarize the historical analysis of the influence of business on education from the radical perspective. The Progressive Era (dating approximately from the turn of the century up to World War I) is considered to be a particularly crucial period for the development of the American economic structure and for education, according to the revisionist perspective. Traditionally, 62 the Progressive Era is viewed as an_age of reform in which government stepped in to regulate big business in the interests of smaller busi- nesses, consumers, and society in general. Monopolies were broken up, regulatory agencies were established, and through the combined efforts of labor unions and government, workers were able to obtain better working conditions and to wrest a variety of fringe benefits from a begrudging management. Progressive education was a movement aimed at humanizing education and social reformers like Upton Sinclair and Jane Addams drew the nation's attention to and generated reforms in problem areas ranging from alcoholism to corruption in the meat packing industry.9 Revisionist historians argue, however, that the most fundamental change of that era was not social reform, but the emergence of a new relationship between big business and government whereby private indus- try used political outlets to create a stable predictable and secure economic environment in which reasonable profits could be generated over a long period of time. Big business wanted to rationalize what had become a chaotic economic and social environment, and to secure its power in that environment.10 During the latter part of the 18005 unbridled competition and the spirit of laissez-faire capitalism ruined several individual businesses and threatened the entire corporate structure. By working together with government in a relationship defined by Kolko as political capitalism, business was able "to attain rationalization in the economy." According to Kolko: 63 Progressivism was not the triumph of small business over the big trusts, as has often been suggested, but the victory of big business in achieving the rationalization of the eggnomy that only the federal government could provide. Events of the Progressive Era represented a significant shift in the outlook of big business, but not in the basic power relations in American society. The concepts of unrestricted competition, survival of the fittest, and laissez-faire capitalism were replaced by the ideal of a planned, socially responsible corporate order in which the interests of all groups of people had to be taken into consideration. Recogni- zing that open competition resulted in chaos and that socialism was attracting wider support among workers, many social reforms were en- acted. Contrary to conventional history, however, the revisionist perspective maintains that these reforms were designed and initiated by class conscious businessmen who were acting in their own self-interests. As Weinstein stated: The Progressive Era--the years from 1900 to 1920--was a period of social turmoil and intense competition among different social groupings and classes for political power and influence in the United States. By 1918 the leaders of the large corporations and banks emerged secure in their loose hegemony over the political structure. They did so by accepting, and unobtrusively leading, a new politics which we will call corporate liberalism. . . .Underlying all, or most, of the new politics of these years was an awareness on the part of the more sophisticated business and political leaders that the social order could be stabilized only if it moved in the direction of general social concern and social responsibility. Dissatisfaction with the increasing polarization of American society and with the apparent decline in influence of some social classes created a climate for change. In that climate many movements grew. The one that was truly cogéervative triumphed; it did so in the name of liberalism. 64 Many of the refOrm measures which were enacted, according to the revisionists, were aimed at quelling discontent among workers. Profit sharing plans, workmen's compensation, pensions, improved working con- ditions, were all attempts on the part of business to reconcile workers to the prevailing corporate structure. Formal education was designed to accomplish basically the same objective, according to this inter- pretation. A stable economy requires a stable work force. Revisionists who have turned their attention to education13 argue that the main function of schooling throughout American history has been one of legi- timation. In general, this has meant preparing people to accept their position in the class structure of society, a position generally commen- surate with the socio-economic background of their parents. More spec- ifically, this has meant socializing workers to accept their role within the social relations of production and the validity of that mode of production along with the distribution of rewards which has resulted from it. The structure of schooling and the expansion of formal education are intricately related to the legitimization function education has been assigned, according to this perspective. The common school move- ment and the subsequent growth of mass public schooling were not motivated by egalitarian concerns. Rather, as Greer stated, The school's continuity with the past was to be found in the fact that it reflected and reinforced what had been from the beginning the restrictive class nature of society. It supported class distinctions and wag expected to socialize children for their place in the world. 4 65 Bowles and Gintis argued that the expansion of public schooling in the United States resulted not from rising cognitive skill requirements but ”by the critical need for a burgeoning capitalist order for a stable work force and citizenry reconciled, if not inured, to the wage labor system."15 The recent growth of junior colleges is traditionally viewed as an attempt to open up opportunities in higher education'for groups of people who otherwise would not have such opportunities. According to the revisionist perspective, however, the increase in junior colleges constitutes a further refinement in the stratification of education. Their primary purpose is to "cool out" lesser talented students, which generally means students from lower socio-economic backgrounds, from higher education by re-orienting them or rechannelling their aspirations and expectations more in line with their supposedly limited abilities.16 The expansion of formal education in general was motivated by a concern for legitimization, not democratization or technical training, according to this perspective. The structure of schooling is also a function of the concern for legitimization according to the revisionist viewpoint. Innovations such as guidance counseling, tracking, vocational education, and even extra- ‘7 to curricular activities were all designed, according to Spring, socialize individuals into accepting their designated roles and to view their own well being in terms of how much they could contribute, in their capacity, to strengthen the prevailing corporate order. The most important structural characteristic of schooling, which clearly reveals the strong relationship between the structure and function of education, is the bureaucratic organization of the schooling process. As Katz argued: 66 The purpose has been, basically, the inculcation of atti- tudes that reflect dominant social and industrial values; the structure has been bureaucracy. The result has been school systems that treat children as units to be processed into particular shapes and dropped into slots roughly con- gruent with the status of their parents. There is a func- tional relationship between the way in which schools are organized and what they are supposed to do. That relation- ship was there a century ago, and it exists today. This is why the issues of social class and bureaucracy are, central to understanding the public school.13 ' As indicated in the previous section, the radical critique main- tains that the bureaucratic organization of work serves important social control functions. Since the primary function of education is to pre- pare people for the world of work, it is not coincidental that schools should be similarly organized. As Bowles and Gintis argued: Order, docility, discipline, sobriety, and humility,-- attributes required by the new social relations of pro- duction--were admitted 3y all concerned as the social benefits of schooling.1 By replicating the social relations of production with the class- room, schools were structured in such a way that those required attri- butes would be developed. The school is a bureaucratic order with hierarchical authority, rule orientation, stratification by 'ability' (tracking) as well as by age (grades), role differentiation by sex (physical education, home economics, shop) and a system of external incentives (marks, promise of promotion, and threat of failure) much like pay and status in the sphere of work. Thus schools are likely to develop in students traits corresponding to those required on the job.20 It is argued that the development of education has long been molded by businessmen and business ideology. However, it was during the Pro- gressive Era when this relationship fully developed, and it has continued 67 to manifest itself up to the present day.21 Representatives of the cor- porate elite have dominated school boards and college boards of trustees. Educational administration has been shaped by the "efficiency expert" and "scientific management" mentality. Corporate elites have bought and sold education officials and have made hugh profits through both legal 22 It is pointed out and illegal business dealings with school systems. that many educators have willingly accepted business perspective in terms of the way schools are run and in terms of who they are run for. Through a variety of direct and indirect means it is argued that educa- tional institutions have been manipulated by and for the corporate structure of American capitalism. The Radical or revisionist interpretation of education maintains that education has developed primarily for the purpose of maintaining the power relations which have characterized the United States through- out its history. By World War I the power was firmly established in the hands of the corporate elites and education has functioned to keep it there. No meaningful social reform will result until the basic institutions and power relationships inherent in capitalism arealtered. The essence of the radical critic was summed up by Bowles when he argued: (1) that schools have evolved in the U.S. not as part of a pursuit of equality, but rather to meet the needs of capi- talist employers for a diciplined and skilled labor force, and to provide a mechanism for social control in the interests of political stability; (2) that as the economic importance of skilled and well educated labor has grown, inequalities in the school system have become increasingly important in reproducing the class structure from one gen-. eration to the next; (3) that the U.S. school system is pervaded by class inequalities, which have shown little sign of diminishing over the last half century; and (4) that the evidently unequal control over school boards and other decision-making bodies in education does not provide a 68 sufficient explanation of theipersistence and pervasive- ness of inequalities in the school system. Although the unequal distribution of political power serves to maintain inequalities in education, their origins are to be f0und outside the political sphere, in the class structure itself and in the class subcultures typical of capitalist societies. Thus unequal education has its roots in the very class structure which it serves to legitimize and reproduce. Inequalities in education are a part of the web of capitalist society, and likely to persist as long as capitalism survives.23 ' Human Capital Theory Reconsidered As indicated in the previous chapter, human capital theory, an extension of neo-classical or conventional economics, assumes that the labor market operates according to the competition model. That is, individuals compete with each other in a free market governed basically by the law of supply and demand. It asserts that wages are determined by the marginal productivity of workers and that marginal productivity is largely a function of those attributes learned in school. It follows logically, therefOre, that increaSing the education of low income workers will increase their income, reduce the inequality in the distri- bution of income, and will increase the total wealth produced, thus reducing poverty. Many critics maintain, however, that the labor market (or markets) does not fit the competition model and, therefore, that human capital theory does not adequately explain the relationship between education and income. Several alternatives to the competition model have been offered to describe how the labor market determines the allocation and cost of labor, and the distribution of income. The Labor Queue One alternative to the competition model and human capital analysis 24 is the theory of the labor queue. According to this perspective the 69 precise skills required on most jobs are learned on the job, so employers seek out those employees who will be the least expensive to train. Since those skills are not readily identifiable employers use educational credentials and other background characteristics as rough indicators to sort out potential employees. Workers are ranked in a labor queue from the best potential worker to the worst. Those who are ranked at the t0p will obtain the more desirable (better paid) jobs. Rather than matching workers and jobs on the basis of specific skills possessed by workers with those required on the job, job opportunities are allocated to workers on the basis of workers' rankings in the labor queue. The distribution of income, according to this model, is a function of the distribution of job opportunities, not the marginal productivity of workers. As a result of jobs and income being distributed in this manner, educational requirements are often increased independently of any change in the skills required on the job. Individuals are often hired with educational backgrounds which surpass what was formerly considered adequate for the job. Those who are ranked lower on the labor queue, and who qualified for the job in the past, are pushed further down the line and are forced to seek less desirable jobs. Individuals respond to this situation by obtaining more credentials in order to enhance or , maintain their competitive position in the job market. Since income is a function of job opportunities rather than marginal productivities, providing more education for lower income people will not alter the differential level of wages paid to workers. It may alter their rela- tive positions in the labor queue, and equalizing education may result in refining the criteria used to allocate workers among the available 70 job opportunities, but equalizing the income distribution requires a direct alteration of the differential wages allocated among jobs and the workers who fill them. The Dual Labor Market The occupational structure has been analyzed within the framework of a dual labor market.25 As in the labor queue theory, emphasis is placed on the structure of the economic system, rather than on the speci- fic qualifications of individuals, in explaining the distribution of income and the perpetuation of poverty. According to this theory, jobs in the primary sector generally have the following characteristics: high wages, good working conditions, employment stability, job security, opportunities for promotion, and due process in the administration of work rules. Jobs in the secondary sector are generally less attractive and, relative to the primary sector, can be described by the following traits: low wages, poor working conditions, unstable employment, little opportunity for advancement, and arbitrary administration of work rules. A close association develops between the nature of the jobs and the personalities of the workers as a result of the workers' experiences in the primary or secondary sector. For example, because work is more stable and offers greater opportunities in the primary sector, these employees are more likely to take an active interest in their jobs. They are prompt, reliable workers who identify their personal interests with the success of their employer, or at least with their own success on their particular jobs. But in the secondary sector, work is unstable and does not offer much opportunity. Workers are less likely to identify with the job or to take more than a passive interest in it because of 71 the temporary, unsatifactory, dead-end nature of the work. Employers, in turn, expect these workers to be less punctual in getting to work and more erratic in their general behavior, thus reinforcing the personality associated with secondary sector workers. There are a number of structural factors in the economic system which interact to create the dual labor market and which account for the different levels of wages paid to workers.26 Primary sector jobs tend to be located in capital intensive, highly concentrated oligopolis- tic or monopolistic industries. As a result of their greater produc- tivity and the control they exercise over the market for their goods, these industries are less susceptible to pressures of the competitive market. They can afford to pay higher wages and to pass that cost along to consumers in the way of higher prices. Such industries are able to accumulate political as well as economic power which further strengthens their position. Labor unions can exert more influence and obtain higher wages, better working conditions, etc. because of the overall strength of the industry or firm. The same factors also inter- act to depress wages in the secondary sector. These jobs are located predominantly in competitive, labor intensive industries which are f0rced to keep prices, and therefore wages, down. Such industries have little political influence. Unions which are organized have little bargaining power because of the competitive nature of the industry or firm. According to the dual labor market theory, therefore, a number of structural factors are operating to depress the wages of many workers, a disproportionate number of whom are women and racial and ethnic minorities. The skills or potential abilities of these workers is a Iii ii. .i.i.. i ii! iii. .ii 5'. ill! I I I 72 secondary rather than a determining factor in accounting for their low earnings. The central implication of the dual labor market is that to effectively deal with the problems of inequality and poverty, policy should be focused on the structural factors which generate that market rather than on education, training, counseling, or other methods of upgrading the skills of individual workers. Internal Labor Markets Another alternative to conventional economic theory of the pricing and allocation of labor is the concept of internal labor markets.27 According to this perspective, wages are based on a set of administrative rules and procedures established within finms rather than by a competi- tive process through which employees are hired, paid, promoted, released, etc. on the basis of their marginal productivity. While employers and employees alike are motivated by a desire to maximize their earnings, such maximization is accomplished basically by stabilizing the employ- ment situation as a whole rather than by setting wages at a level com- parable to the marginal productivity of individual workers. Rules and procedures are established within firms to govern the wage scale, promotion lines, retirment benefits, etc. for the benefit of employers and employees. Seniority is perhaps the best known charac- teristic of the internal labor market. While entry level positions are generally low paid (below what a worker might expect to get on the basis of his or her ability and experience) the promise of job security and future rewards make the initial sacrifice worthwhile. Because entry level jobs are relatively low paying positions, an employee is likely to stay with a given employer to obtain the benefits which become available. 73 Employers benefit by maintaining a stable work force. The expenses of high turnover; recruitment, screening, testing, and training are kept at a minimum. The external market is influenced by competitive factors associated with conventional economic theory and certain re- straints are placed on the internal labor market. But approximately 80 percent of the employed labor force work in internal labdr markets.28 Therefore, it is argued that the pricing and allocation of labor is determined more by the structure of the internal labor market than by the external factors. Three factors account for the origin of internal labor markets. First, skills required on the job are often unique to a specific firm. Therefore, as in the labor queue theory, employees are hired according to their trainability, since it is difficult to predict performance on a job employees have never had. Again, general background character- istics, such as formal education, are used to sort prospective employees in terms of their ability to learn the skills required on the job. As a result, a second factor comes into play. These skills are generally learned inf0rmally on the job, primarily from other more experienced workers. Since the specific skills required on the job are learned from others who have held those jobs, a stable work force results in lower training costs. The third factor is custom. After a period of time workers become accustomed to operating in a set pattern. Norms are established regarding the methods of recruitment of new employees, the distribution of wages, criteria for promotion, and other privileges of employment. While these customs may have originated in response to economical factors, they often persist beyond the time period in which they could be justified on economic grounds alone. Such customs which 74 may have been infbrmally practiced at one time become institutionalized on a formal basis and are frequently written into union contracts. As a result of both technical needs and traditional attitudes, therefore, internal labor markets arise and are perpetuated in response to the security needs of employees, the desire for stability on the part of employers, and the material benefit of both. " Internal labor markets are established precisely for the purpose of providing benefits to those on the inside which are not available to others on the outside. In order to obtain the benefits of an inter- nal labor market of course, one has to get into the firm. Knowlege of and access to openings in addition to many other structural charac- teristics of the internal labor market are governed by informal rules and methods, which frequently are treated as formal agreements and often become formal policies. As a result of such informalities, the use of general screening devices for the purpose of ranking potential employees, like formal education, and other characteristics of internal labor markets, minorities, women, and poor whites are frequently rele- gated to a low income status, once again, more because of the way the economy is structured and the way it functions than because of differ- ences in individual capabilities. Credentialism and the Expansion of Formal Education Several other critics have argued that formal education has become a tool for screening out and selecting employees for reasons which have little or nothing to do with the capabilities associated with a given level of educational attainment, the skills required on the job, or abilities of individuals who have completed a given number of years of ill} [Ill 75 29 Many individuals who have the requisite skills are locked . schooling. out of jobs because they lack the necessary credentials. V A variety of factors account for this growing phenomenon of cre- dentialism. The supply of workers at a given level of educational attainment often determines what the requirements will be. If the supply of labor is tight in a particular area, standards will be lowered. But since people are staying in school longer, the general tendency has been in the opposite direction. Employers can often afford to raise their educational requirements and still have a large pool of talent from which to choose.30 In fact, as more and more better educated (highly schooled) workers enter the labor force, employers often respond by raising their educational requirements to reduce the number of candi- dates they must consider in order to minimize the expense of selecting and recruiting new employees. In some cases, however, employees with lower levels of educational attainment have turned out to be the most productive and, without realizing it, employers have done a disservice to themselves by increasing their requirements.31 As indicated earlier in this section, it is argued that require- ments are frequently raised because the precise skills required on the job are not easily identified and over time they will often change. Employees are hired, therefore, because of their ability to learn new tasks. Also employees are often hired at an entry level position with the intention of eventually promoting them. Employers argue their requirements are set according to the jobs these employees will have in the future, not just for the positions they will assume immediately.32 Some companies will raise their requirements purely for the prestige they believe a highly educated work force will give them. 76 Most of the factors cited above which account, at least in part, for the increase in educational requirements can perhaps be indirectly related to some attributes required on the job. However, it is argued that in some instances requirements have been raised solely for reasons which have virtually nothing to do with ability to perform on the job. Many professional organizations, labor unions, and other organized groups establish minimum requirements for the purpose of restricting the supply of'bualified" workers in a particular field. By raising educational requirements, various occupational and status groups have monopolized jobs by imposing their cultural standards on the selection process. The effect is to create an artificial scarcity of qualified (credentialed) workers, thereby maintaining or increasing the wages those on the in- side can command.33 As a result of these various uses of educational credentials people spend more years in school. In turn, requirements are raised. Requirements and attainment reinforce each other upward for reasons which have little, if anything, to do with the skills required on the job.34 A major consequence of credentialism is to turn formal educa- tion into an institutiOn which restricts upward mobility and contributes h.35 One study estimated to the unequal distribution of income and wealt that up to half of the net earning differentials are due to the use of education as a screening device which denies people positions for which d.36 Various interest groups use educa- they are otherwise qualifie tional requirements to protect their standing within the class structure by denying entry to individuals because they lack proper certification rather than because of the skills and potential abilities they may or may not possess. 77 The labor market, it is argued, does not function according to the model offered by conventional economic theory. Since human capital theory is rooted in the conventional paradigm, it misconstrues the role of education in determining income and occupation. As the radical critique maintains, this challenge to the conventional analysis of education asserts that the expansion of formal education has not been motivated by changes in the skill requirements of jobs or by a concern for democratization. A variety of structural characteristics of the labor market in particular and the class structure in general, account for the expansion of formal education and for the inequalities which persist in our society. Individual characteristics are of secondary importance compared to these structural factors. As Bluestone argued: The inadequate incomes of most of the working poor are not of their own making. If we are to blame them for anything it must be for not having the good fortune to complete an education topped off by a college degree. Rather we must blame the economic system which in too many instances pro- vides less than an adequate job for those of adequate talents. In dealing with the working poor it is not enough to deal with problems of individuals--too little schooling, not enough training, inadequate housing and filthy neighborhoods, no hope, and no potential power. We must also find solutions to an economic system which con- tinues to propel a poverty-wage sector right into the decade of the '70's. 7 The Alternative Education Movement During the past ten or fifteen years various alternatives to 38 traditional schooling have been proposed. Free schools, community 39 40 control of schools, open classrooms, voucher systems,41 and descho- 42 are some of the basic theoretical and ideological components oling of what has come to be known as the alternative education movement. Some of these proposals represent totally new conceptions of what 78 education should be, how society should be structured, and how we can achieve that society. Others are reformulations of old ideas which have been perhaps slightly altered to suit modern conditions. Some of the proposals have remained simply as ideas in people's minds. Others have been experimented with in actual practice and some have been incor- porated into traditional school settings. Although there are important differences among the various dimensions of the alternative school movement, the similarities among them, particularly in terms of their analyses of conventional schooling, constitute a fairly consistent view of how education has functioned in the past and the direction we should move in order to reform education and society in general. The alternative education movement was stimulated by the perceived failure of schools to perform their basic function of teaching. The racism which was rampant in the school system of many major cities, the inability of schooling to provide upward mobility for the poor in general, and their failure to provide a decent, humane education for all groups of people led to demands for radical changes in education.43 Schooling came to be viewed as an oppressive institution which did little more than process people for slots in an economic machine whose chief values are conformity and the production and consumption of material goods. In order to make education a true learning experience whereby individuals can cultivate their abilities and interests, develop the capacity to think critically about the world, and pursue and benefit from their natural desires and abilities to learn, it is argued that the control of education must be decentralized. Perhaps the most influential dimension of alternative education has been the free school movement. Many free schools have been started 79 within the past decade and the free school philosophy embodies most of the central elements of the rationale behind each dimension of alterna- tive education, again, acknowledging some important distinctions. Free Schools Although there are many different kinds of schools which bill themselves as free schools, most of them can be distinguished from traditional schools in the following ways. Free schools allow the individual student to determine his or her own education with the guidance of the adults associated with the school. They frequently have no attendance requirements, grades, tests, or other administrative pro- cedures, characteristic of most traditional schools. The free school rhetoric emphasizes the right of each individual to do “his or her own thing" and it advocates more democratic control of the school, although in actual practice there is often a significant degree of conformity among students, and teachers often exercise greater authority, albeit in a more subtle way. Compared with students in most traditional schools, however, free school students do have more freedom to do what they want to do when they want to do it. According to the free school advocates, people are inherently curious beings who, if left to their own devices, will seek out educa- tion and will develop into knowledgeable, productive citizens. A. S. Neill, the founder of perhaps the most famous free school, Summerhill, stated: My view is that a child is innately wise and realistic. If left to himself without adult suggestion of any king4 he will develop as far as he is capable of developing. 80 The free sChool philosophy is rooted largely in the educational 45 who emphasized the supremacy of individual philosophy of Rousseau rights over the needs of society. For Rousseau, and for many of the free school advocates of the 19605 and 19705, society and its institu- tions serve to corrupt individuals. Educational institutions are no exception. A proper education, therefore, is one in which the indi- vidual is allowed to decide for himself or herself the kinds of acti- vities which will be pursued, independently of any institutional constraints. George Dennison argued that we shbuld:' . . .show some little faith in the life principles which have in fact structured all the well-structured elements of our existence, such principles as our inherent socia- bility, our inherent rationality, our inherent freedom of thought, our inherent curiosity, and our inherent (while vigor lasts) appetite for more. 5 Dennison pointed to the negative effects of institutions, particularly in the field of education, as a primary reason for relying on the inherent qualities of man: The issue is precisely that of the effect of the insti- tution upon the individual. The institution, the educa- tional system in all branches, is currupting to the individual, and though the corruption may in many cases take the form of considerable expertise, the fact remains that competence is destroyed.47 ‘ The corruption of schooling is manifested in several ways. First, it destroys the desire and ability to learn. Schools, it is argued, are deadening, bureaucratic, authoritarian institutions which stifle crea- tivity, encourage conformity, and instill boredom and fear among the client population. At best school is a chore children must endure. At 81 worst it is a threatening situation feared by many students. Fear of failure leads students to develop defensive strategies in order to survive in school. They give answers they know the teachers are looking for. Pleasing others, in order to avoid failure, is what school is all about for many students. In John Holt's words: We adults destroy most of the intellectual and creative capacity of children by the things we do to them or make them do. We destroy this capacity above all by making them afraid, afraid of not doing what other people want, of not pleasing, of making miStakes, of failing, of being wrong. Thus we make them afraid to gamble, afraid to 48 experiment, afraid to try the difficult and the unknown. A second corruptive characteristic of schooling is its social engineering function. It is argued that if education means the acquisi- tion of skills, developing one's intellecutal capacities, pursuing one's interests and abilities, or fOllowing a natural curiosity to learn about the world one lives in, then schooling is a noneducational or mis- educational experience. What is learned in school is acceptance of 49 Or, what Goodman defined as a uniform world view. as Friedenberg argued, all people are molded to fit into a middle-class way of life.50 More specifically, the operation of schooling is dictated by the-needs of a particular kind of economic system which needs workers to perform its banal tasks and consumers to purchase its products, in order to keep the system functioning. People are conditioned to aspire to ever greater levels of consumption of material goods. Cultural or social needs, or anything which interferes with the profitable functioning of that economic system are secondary considerations, if they are considered at all. Attitudes and values, therefore, rather than specific skills or Iiii lIIIIII.IIillV‘lI-ll 82 the ability to think critically, are the principle attributes learned in school. Friedenberg argued that: . . .what youngsters learn in their public school careers does fit them to take part in the economy on the economy's terms, which for most of them, are the only terms on which- they can survive at all. This learning, however, does not consist primarily in a set of marketable skills, but-of attitudes toward the self as it relates to other people and t°5ihe student's potential economic function as an adult. A5 diplomas become pre-requisites for jobs, Goodman argued, the corre- lation between schooling and employment becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Since there are not enough jobs available for all who want to work, diplomas are used as a mechanism for selecting workers, independently of the skills possessed by workers. The expansion of formal education is motivated less by the need or desire for more education and more by the fact that the unemployed simply must be kept off the streets.52 A third, but closely related, corruptive aSpect of schooling is its role in perpetuating inequality and denying opportunity to minorities and the poor. In Goodman's words, "the usual propaganda--that schooling is a road to high salaries--is for most poor youth a lie."53 Some people, of course, do achieve upward social mobility through schooling, but this does not alter the class structure of society or the role of schooling in bolstering that structure. According to Friedenberg: The school endorses and supports the values and patterns of behavior of certain segments of the population, providing their members with the credentials and shibboleths needed for the next stages of their journey, while instilling in others a sense of inferiortiy and warning the rest of society against them as troublesome and untrustworthy. In this way, the school contributes simultaneously to social mobility and social stratification. It helps to see to it that the kinds of people who get ahead are those who will support the social system it represents.54 83 For Goodman, Friedenberg, and others within the alternative educa- tion movement, the solution to our educational and social problems is to provide pe0ple with a variety of ways of growing up and becoming educated. While schooling, as we know it, can perfbrm some useful educational functions, it represents only one kind of learning experi- ence; one which should not be compulsory for all groups of’people for any extended period of time. Free schools and other alternative educa- tional environments, provide settings in which individuals and specific community groups can develop educational programs to meet their parti- cular needs rather than those of major corporations. According to some observers, however, free schools, voucher systems, open classrooms and many of the other innovations associated with alternative education still place unjustifiable restrictions on people. These critics maintain that what is required is the disestab- lishment of schooling altogether. Deschooling The deschooling proposal maintains that the first step towards meaningful educational reform and towards the creation of a truly demo- cratic society is the elimination of schools.. According to its principal advocates, Ivan Illich and Everett Reimer, individuals are becoming increasingly controlled by large institutions which indoctrinate people with the need to continuously consume the goods and services offered by those manipulative institutions. We have become passive consumers rather than self-reliant, self-determining actors. It is through the schooling process that people learn to accept this consumption orientation and the legitimacy of institutional definitions of realitys Illich argued: ll Val-Milli 1 I I'llil. MIA-V I Ill-{I .lllIIl .l‘llll 84 School. . .is the major component of the system of consumer production which is becoming more complex and specialized and bureaucratized. Schooling is necessary to produce the habits and expectations of the managed consumer society. Inevitably it produces institutional dependence and ranking in spite of any effort by the teacher to the contrary.5 Allowing students to choose the school they attend or to exercise greater freedom within the classroom is no solution, according to this perspective. It is the school process itself, or what Illich and Reimer refer to as the hidden curriculum, which must be eliminated. Schooling teaches people to view education as a product to be consumed. After an individual has accumulated enough courses, credits, diplomas, etc. then that person is considered to be educated. Schooling, therefore, is the first step in conditioning people into becoming passive consumers, sub- ject to the control of all sorts of other manipulative, but seemingly benevolent, institutions. According to Illich: Once a man or woman has accepted the need for school, he or she is easy prey for other institutions. Once young people have allowed their imaginations to be f0rmed by curricular instruction, they are conditioned to institu- tional planning of every sort. . . .This transfer of re- sponsibility from self to institution guarantees social regression, especially once it has been accepted as an obligation.56 Noting the current unequal distribution of educational resources and the prohibitive costs that would be involved in providing all children with a college education, Illich and Reimer maintain that the concept of equal educational opportunity is a myth. As long as educa- tion is defined as schooling we could never realize equal opportunity f0r all, even if we seriously tried to accomplish it. The myth of equal 85 educational opportunity has played an important role, however, in maintaining the relative positions of the privileged and the deprived. "For the latter, they held the promise of equal opportunity; for the fermer, the promise of an orderly progression under control of the elite."57 In the final analysis, "Schools. . .promise the world and 58 then become the instruments of its denial." The defining charac- teristics of our society and the role of schooling in that society are summarized by Reimer in the following statement: Modern institutions have assumed the burden of maintaining and justifying a continuing hierarchy of privilege. Among these institutions, the school plays a central role. It initiates each generation into the myths of technological production and consumption, the ideas that what is to be consumed must first be produced and that what is produced must be consumed. Not only goods, but services and know- ledge itself become commodities. It celebrates the rituals that reconcile the myths and realities of a society that merely pretends to be for all. It prepares men for spe- cialized roles in specialized institutions, selecting and shaping them in terms of both skills and values. By its own hierarchical structure, it accustoms men to accept a single integrated hierarchy of power and privilege. School qualifies men for participation in other institutions and convicts those who do not meet the requirements of school of not deserving desirable roles in other institutions.59 The solution is to replace schools with a series of learning webs or networks in which teachers and learners would register their inter- ests and the conditions under which they would participate. Individuals would use these networks to locate the kinds of educational experiences 60 Money for education should be distributed directly to they want. private citizens rather than to educational institutions. People could use their allotments as they see fit for their own educational needs. The allocation of funds should be based on the financial status of 86 families in order to create a more equitable distribution of educational resources. Rather than a classroom being the setting in which educa- tion is carried out, people could receive their education in laboratories, museums, airports, farms, or virtually anywhere in society. Education would become a true learning experience rather than a process of con- sumption or an obstacle course of bureaucratic hurdles to be overcome. In addition to making education a more worthwhile experience and one which is more readily available to all people, it would lead to a more democratic society. As Reimer stated: True education is a basic social force. Present social structures could not survive an educated population. . . People are schooled to accggt a society. They are educated to create or recreate one. There are some important differences among the various alternative education proposals. For example many of the advocates of community control of schools are not sympathetic to the flexibility of free schools and they are even less sympathetic to deschooling. For many people it is the lack of discipline in the public schools and the desire for a more traditional authoritarian classroom which makes the concept of community control attractive. 'But these various philo- sophies do share a common base in terms of their criticism of public schooling, the ultimate objectives to be achieved, and a belief in decentralization of the control of education as the direction for educational, and ultimately social reforms. Education, and the conventional interpretation of the role of education in the United States have been criticized from several dir- ections. A general consensus has emerged, however, around the five themes listed at the beginning of this chapter. The conventional and 87 class perspectives do overlap to a limited extent. For example, even the most ardent celebrants of American education admit that there are, and always have been, some inequities in that system. And the most radical critics acknowledge that many people have learned valuable skills in school. But in terms of education as a social institution; the forces which have shaped education, the influence of edutation on society, and its effect on the lives of the majority of individuals and groups of pe0ple in that society, and in terms of the nature of inequality in the United States these two perspectives represent widely divergent interpretations. In the following chapters these two inter- pretations will be evaluated against a variety of available evidence on the role of education in the United States. REFERENCES 1The fbllowing discussion on Marxism is based largely on the fOllowing sources: Karl Marx, Das Kapital (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, l970). Lewis Coser, MaSters of Socialogical'Thought (Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Inc., l97l). Seymour Martin Lipset andeeinhard Bendix (Eds. ), Class, Status, and Power (New York: The Free Press, l966). Irving M. Zeitlin, Idealogy_and the Development of SOciological Theory (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice- Hall, *Inc. , T968). 2Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis, "1.0. and the U.S. Class Structure,” Social Poligy, November/December, 1972, January/February l973. Stephen A. Marglin, "What Do Bosses Do?" The Review of Radical Political Economics, Summer, l974. Katherine Stone, "The Origins of Job Structures in the Steel Industry,“ The Review of Radical Political Economics, Summer, l974. 3Harry Braverman, Labor and Monopoly Capital (Monthly Review Press, l974). Marglin, loc. cit. Stone, loc. cit. 4Marx, loc. cit., p. 232. 5Marglin, loc. cit., p. 62. 6Braverman, loc. cit., p. 147. 7In addition to the references cited in Reference 2 see: David K. Cohen and Marvin Lazerson, "Education and the Labor Force," The Capitalist S stem, Richard C. Edwards, Michael Reich, Thomas Weisskopf (Eds.), (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., l972). Samuel Bowles, "Contra- dictions in Higher Education in the United States," The Capitalist System. Samuel Bowles, "Unequal Education and the Reproduction of the Hierarchical Division of Labor," The Worker in 1"Post-Industrial" Capitalism, Bertram Silverman and Murray Yanowitch (Eds.) (New York: The Free Press, 1974). Herbert Gintis, "Education, Technology, and the Characteristics of Worker Productivity," The American Economic Review, May l97l. 8Clarence J. Karier, "Testing for Order and Control in the Cor- porate Liberal State," Educational Theo_y5 Spring, 1972. Bowles and Gintis, loc. cit. 9Richard Hofstadter,The Age;of Reform: 'From Bryan to F.D.R. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf,‘Ihéi:‘1963). ‘Arthur Stanley Link, Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive Era,'1910a1917 (New York: .Harper & Brothers, 1954). George EdWin MoWry, The'Erapof‘TheOdore Roosevelt, l9004l9l2 (New York:' Harper & Brothers, l958). 88 89 loGabriel Kolko, The Triumph of Conservatism (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1967). James Weinstein, The Corporate Ideal in the Liberal State: l900-19l8 (Boston: Beacon Press, l968). William Appleman Williams,The Contours of American History (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, l966 . nKolko, loc. cit., p. 284. 12Weinstein, loc. cit., p. 3. 13Colin Greer, The Great School Legend (New York: Basic Books, Inc., l972). Michael Katz, Class, Bureaucracy, and Schools (New York: Praeger Publishers, Inc., 197]). Joel Spring, Education and the Rise of the Corporate State (Boston: Beacon Press, 1972). 14 Greer, loc. cit., p. 64. l5 16Burton R. Clark, "The 'Cooling Out' Function of Higher Educa- tion," American Journal of Sociology, May, 1960. Jerome Karabel, "Protecting the Portals: Class and the Community College," Social Policy, May/June, l974. Brent Mack Shea, "Two Year Colleges and Inequality," Integrated Education, January-February, l975. l7 Bowles and Gintis, loc. cit., p. 79. Spring, loc. cit. ‘3Katz, loc. cit., p. xviii. 19Bowles and Gintis, loc. Cit., p. 79. 2°Ibid., p. 87. 2lRaymond E. Callahan, Education and the Cult of Efficiency (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962). Thorstein Veblen, The Hi her Learnin in America (New York: Sentry Press, l9l8). Uhvia a. Smith, Who Rules The Universities? (Monthly Review Press, l974). Spring, loc. cit. 22 Spring, loc. cit., Chapter Seven. 23Bowles, “Unequal Education and the Reproduction of the Hier- archical Division of Labor," loc. cit., p. 225. 24Lester C. Thurow, "Education and Economic Equality," Public Interest, Summer, 1972. 25Harold M. Baron and Bennett Hymer, "The Dynamics of a Dual Labor Market," Problems in Public Economy: An Urban Perspective, David M. Gordon (Ed.).(Lexington: D.Cl’Heath and Company, 1971)} Barry Bluestone, "The Characteristics of Marginal Industries," Problems in Political Economy: An Urban Perspective, loc. cit. MichaeThJ. Piore, "The Dual Labor Market: Theory and Implications," Problems in Political Economy: An Urban Perspective, loc. cit. 90 26Bluestone, loc. cit. Howard M. Wachtel, "Capitalism and Poverty in America: Paradox or Contradiction," The Worker in “PostélnduStrial" Capitalism, loc. cit. 27Peter B. Doeringer and Michael J. Piore, Internal Labor Markets and Manpower Analysis (Lexington: D. C. Heath and Company, l97l). Richard R. Lester, Hirin Practices and Labor Competition, Research Report Series 88-91 r1ncéton5University’Tndustrial Relations Section, l954 . 28Doeringer and Piore, loc. cit., p. 4l. 29Douglas L. Adkins, "The American Educated Labor Force: An Empirical Look at Theories of Its Formation and Composition,“ Hi her Education and the Labor Market, Margaret S. Gordon (Ed.), Carneg1e Conmission on Higher Education (McGraw-Hill Book Company, l974). Ivar Berg, Education and Jobs (New York: Praeger Publishers, Inc., l97D). Randall Collins, "Functional and Conflict Theories of Educational Stratification," American Sociological Review, December, l97l. Zvi Griliches and William M. Mason, ”Education, Income and Ability," Journal of Political Econo , May-June, l972. S. M. Miller and Frank Riessman, "The Credentials irap," Social_Class and Sogial Policy (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1968). Joseph E. Stiglitz, "The Theory of 'Screening,' Education, and the Distribution of Income," The American Economic Review, June, l975. Paul Taubman and Terence Wales, Hi her EdUcation and Earnings, Carnegie Commission on Higher Education ("Caraw- Hill Book Company, 1974). 30Berg, loc. cit. Richard A. Lester, Manpower Planniggyin a Free Society(Princeton: Princeton University Press, l966). 31 32 33Collins, loc. cit. Benjamin Shimberg, Barbara F. Esser, and Daniel H. Kruger, Qggypational Licepsing: Practices and Poljgies (Washington, D.C.: Public Affairs Press, l972). Max Weber, "Bureau- cracy," From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (Eds.), (New Yofl: Oxford University Press, l973). Berg, loc. cit. Miller and Riessman, loc. cit. Berg, loc cit. Lester, loc. cit. 34Berg, loc. cit. Collins, loc. cit. Murray Milner, The Illusion of Equality_(Josey-Bass, Inc., 1972 . 35 36 37 Stiglitz, loc. cit. Taubman and Wales, loc. cit. Taubman and Wales, loc. cit. Bluestone, loc. cit., p. 107. 91 38George Dennison, The Lives of Children (New York: Vintage Books, 1969). Edgar Z. Friedenberg, COmingpof‘Age iguAmerica (New York: Vintage Books, 1965). Paul Goodman, Compulsory His-Education and the Community of Scholars (New York: Vintage Books, l964). John Holt, How Children Fail (New York: Dell Publishing Company, l97D). Jonathon Konl, Free Schools (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1972)., A. S. Neill, Summerhillz' A Radical Approach to Child Rearing (New York: Hart Publishihg Company,T1960). 39Mario Fantini and Marilyn Gittell, Decentralization: Achieving Reform (New York: Praeger Publishers, Inc., 1973). 4°Joseph Featherstone, "The British Infant Schools," Radical School Reform. Ronald and Beatrice Gross (Eds.), (New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc., l969). Herbert Kohl, The Qpen Classroom (New York: Random House, l969). 41James A. Mecklenburger and Richard W. Hostrop (Eds.), Education Vouchers from Theory to Alum Rock (Homewood: ETC Publications, i972}. 42Ivan Illich, Deschooling_Society (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, Inc., l97l). Everett Reimer, School is Dead (Garden City: Doubleday and Company, Inc., l972). 43Holt, loc. cit. James Herndon, The Way It Spozedrto Be (New York: Simon ana Schuster, Inc., 1968). Jonathon Kozol, Death at an Early Age (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, l967). 44 45Jean Jacques Rousseau, His Educationa1_Theories Selected from Emile, Julie, and Other Writing§_(Woodbury: Barrow's Educational— Series, 1942). 46Dennison, loc. cit., p. 246-247. 47Ihid., p. 276. 48Holt, loc. cit., p. 208. 49Goodman, loc. cit., p. 67. See also, Goodman, Growing_Up Absurd (New Yo-k: Vintage Books, l960). 50Friedenberg, loc. cit., p. l75. See also, Friedenberg, The Vanishing Adolescent (Boston: Beacon Press, 1964). Sl 52 53 Neill, loc. cit., p. 4. Friedenberg, Coming_of Age in America, loc. cit., p. l67. Goodman, Cgmpulsory His-Education, loc. cit., p. 54. Ibid., p. 23. 92 54Friedenberg, Comipg:of Age in America, loc. cit., p. Sl. 55Daniel U. Levine and Robert J. Havighurst (Eds.), Farewell to Schools? ? ? (Worthington: Charles A. Jones Publishing Company, 1971), p. 37. 56with, loc cit., p. 56-57. 57 58 59 Reimer, loc. cit., p. 55. Ibid., p. 6l. Ibid., p. 58. 60Illich, loc. cit., see Chapter Six. Reimer, loc. cit., see Chapters Eight, Nine, and Ten. 6lReimer, loc. cit., p. l2l. CHAPTER V SKILL REQUIREMENTS. EMPLOYER SELECTION STANDARDS. AND EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT The first question to be examined is the following: Can the expansion of fOrmal education in the United States be explained in terms of techndlogical advances or changes in the technical skill requirements of jobs? As indicated in Chapter III, it is widely believed that rapidly increasing technical skill requirements of jobs has neces- sitated an expanding educational apparatus. However, there are some contradictory themes which are frequently articulated by those who adhere to the technical theory. As Braverman stated regarding the liter~ ature on the sociology of work: On the one hand, it is emphasized that modern work, as a result of the scientific-technical revolution and |‘auto- mation' requires ever higher levels of education, training, the greater exercise of intelligence and mental effort in general. At the same time, a mounting dissatisfaction with the conditions of industrial and office labor appears to contradict this view. For it is also said--sometimes even by the same people who at other times support the first. view--that work has become increasingly subdivided into petty operations that fail to sustain the interest or engage the capacities of humans with current levels of education; that these petty operations demand ever less skilland training; and that the modern trend of work by its 'mindlessness' and 'bureaucratization' is 'alienating' ever larger sections of the working population.1 Undoubtedly, both phenomena are occurring, to some extent, in different parts of the occupational structure. Some new jobs have been created and others will be created in the future, which require higher 93 94 levels of technical abilities. Other jobs have been and will continue to be upgraded, also because of increasing knowledge and technological advances. Many other workers, however, are employed in jobs that do not require their full abilities. But the growth of formal education has effected virtually everyone. Workers at all levels of the occupa- tional structure have attained greater levels of education'than their predecessors2 and the educational requirements of jobs have increased fbr blue-collar workers, including so-called "unskilled laborers," as 3 The well as for highly skilled professional white-collar workers. technical explanation is not restricted to any one segment of the occu- pational structure. Skill requirements at all levels, it is argued, have increased. In addition, the percentage of jobs requiring high levels of skill has increased while unskilled jobs are becoming more scarce. As a result of these trends, greater proportions of each generation have spent more time in school. As indicated in the first chapter, this assertion will be evaluated by examining the fOllowing: l. the relationship between the amount of fbrmal education required to perform on the job with the educational attain- ment of workers holding those jobs; 2. the effects of automation and technological change in general on the skill requirements of jobs; 3. the relationship between fbrmal education and the performance of workers on the job; 4. the educational attainment of older and younger workers perfbrming the same job; 5. the ways workers learn the skills they use on their jobs. 95 Technical Requirements and Educational Attainment Ideally the relationship (or lack of one) between technical skill requirements and educational attainment could be examined simply by comparing the amount of education required to perfbrm a given job with the amount attained by the worker holding that job. If such an analysis were carried out throughout the occupational structure, over time, it would be possible to more accurately determine the extent to which technical skill requirements of jobs have accounted for the increasing educational attainment of workers. If the educational requirements established by employers were known, then the three sets of data; technical skill requirements, employer requirements, and actual attain- ment, could be compared in order to determine the extent to which employers' standards diverged from technical requirements. Such precise data, unfortunately, do not exist, but it is possible to draw some approximate conclusions from data which are available. The U.S. Deaprtment of Labor publication, Estimates of Worker Trait Reguirements for 4,900 Jobs as Defined in the l949 Dictionarypof 4 provides a summary of the experience, training, Occupational Titles, and education required, according to Labor Department occupational analysts, as of l949. A revision published in l966, Selected Charac- teristics of Occupations, (Physical Demands, Workjpngonditions, Trainingylime) l966 - A Supplement to the Dictionary of Occupational jjjflg§,5 provides the same information for 14,000 jobs as of l966. In these two Labor Department publications Job descriptions provided in the second and third editions of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) were used to categorize jobs along several dimensions. Estimates 96 is based on the second edition and Selected Characteristics of Occupa- tjggs is based on the third edition. Jobs were rated according to scales of aptitudes, temperaments, interests, physical demands and other characteristics of the work involved. Several analysts, each of whom were given an extensive training course, rated each job.6 (For further discussion of how the GED scores for jobs were determined see Appendix A.) From these two documents and U.S. census data, comparisons have been made between educational requirements of jobs and educational attainment of workers, and how this relationship has changed over time. In this section research which has been carried out along these lines will be reviewed. Employer selection standards will be discussed briefly in this section but they will be examined more thoroughly later in this and the following chapters. Most of the studies which have used Estimates and Selected Characteristics of Occupations have focused on the General Educational Development (GED) scale. Reasoning, mathematical, and language skills were analyzed in determining the GED score of each occupation. This score, in turn, was translated into an appropriate school year equi- valent. On page v of the Introduction to Estimates it states that, "Appropriate school grade equivalents are provided on the inside of the covers of this volume as an aid in evahuating an applicant's General Educational Development." However, as a result of a subsequent decision such equivalents were not provided. Sidney Fine, who super- vised the development of Estimates, said the school equivalents were not included because, 97 . . Jhigh school graduation' or '12 years' of education can mean d1 ferent th1ngs for different areas of the country, fbr different schools in the same city, or for different periods of time. Furthermore, the number of years of schooling has little relevanoet0>job tasks in many instances. ‘ But as Bezdek and Getzel argued: Whatever the case, the translation of these codes into required years of education and training is a logical and necessary step. Educational and training requirements in terms of years have a more universal meaning for manpower and educational planning than do the ambiguous educational development and vocational preparation codes which are difficult to interpret and with which few people are acquainted.8 As a result, several researchers have used this material in an attempt to compare the amount of formal education required in order to be able to perform on jobs with the actual educational attainment of the workers holding those jobs. Certain precautions should, however, be kept in mind. Fine's warningscannot be totally ignored for there are differences among schools and schools do change. For some jobs fbrmal education may be irrelevant from a technical standpoint, although this does not stop some employers from establishing educational requirements for many of them. DeSpite the Labor Department's attempts to evaluate jobs purely in terms of the various attributes required to perfbrm them, personal tastes and prejudices, in all likelihood, were not eliminated in the DOT's descriptions and in the analyses of the functional requirements.9 Given the complexity of the job analysts' tasks, due to the huge number of jobs performed in society and the various attributes required of them, some of the jobs undoubtedly were simply described and analyzed incor repre the l tiona skill with needs nica' work §g1g GED cove thos and *Bev He. Ecké Ecor Wt and Fifi year of c Wei Stua fbr 98 incorrectly. However, these Department of Labor references probably represent the most comprehensive and informative attempts to determine the level of skill and the amount of training required in the occupa- tional structure. They are valuable tools in estimating the kinds of skills and training needed for many jobs and when used in conjunction with educational attainment data much can be learned about manpower needs in the United States, and about the relationship between tech- nical skill requirements of jobs and the educational attainment of the work force. Ivar Berg used Estimates in conjunction with the l950 census and Selected Characteristics of Occupations with the l960 census to compare GED requirements (translated into years of schooling) of the 4,000 jobs covered in Estimates with the educational attainment of workers holding those jobs, and to examine the changes which occurred in requirements and attainment over those ten years.* Berg fbund that workers generally *Berg used the fallowing scale: GED Years of Schooling O 4 7 lo 12 l6 l8 He used this scale because it had been used in earlier studies. R. S. Eckaus, "Economic Criteria for Education and Training," Review of Economics and Statistics, l964, pages lBI-l90 and John G. Scoville. "Education and Trainihg Requirements for Occupations," Review of Economics and Statistics, 1966, pages 387-394, used Estimates to compare required’ with actual educational attainment by translating GED requirements into years of schooling according to this scale. Selected Characteristics of Occupations was not available at the time Eckaus and Scoville did their studies so they were unable to conduct the kind of longitudinal study which Berg and others subsequently did. Carrying out this kind of analysis is quite a cumbersome process fbr several reasons. Job titles in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles \IO'IU'I-th-1 99 attained more years of schooling than their jobs called fbr, and parti- cularly at the higher levels, the disparity increased between l950 and l960. In l950 l.l million jobs required a college degree whereas 4.1 million members of the experienced civilian labor force were college graduates. In 1960 a college degree was considered to be a functional requirement for 1.4 million jobs while 6.0 million members-of the work fbrce were college graduates. Despite the methodological difficulties involved in determining functional requirements, assigning a particular GED score to specific jobs, and then translating that score into years of schooling Berg stated, "there is a distinct drift of 'better' educa- ted people into 'middle' level jobs and a reduction in the number of 'less' educated people who move up into middle-level jobs in the decade "10 covered by the data. He concluded, Since 'achievements' appear to have exceeded requirements in most job categories, it cannot be argued helprlly that technological and related changes attending most jobs account for the pattern whereby better-eggcated personnel are 'required' and utilized by managers. V. Lane Rawlins and Lloyd Ulman conducted a similar analysis of 12 450 professional and technical occupations. They found "a rather consistent increase in educational attainment over the lO-year period on. must be translated into census occupational classifications. This problem is compounded by the fact that the coding scheme was altered in the third edition of the DOT. The GED score of various occupations may be questionable in some instances and the translation of CEO scores into years of schooling is subject to various interpretations. A further problem is created by the fact that the seven point GED scale used in Estimates was collapsed into a six point scale in Selected Characteristics of Occupations. For a discussion of how these methodolochEl problems were handled see Chapter III of Berg's Education and Jobs. TOO [1950-l960] that bears no statistically significant relationship to the changes in estimated requirements."13 Rawlins and Ulman suggested that the upgrading of educational requirements is at least partially an adjustment to the supply of better educated workers. The increase in the median number of school years completed in a set of what they referred to as "dead-end" occupations which require quite limited amounts of training is offered as further evidence that the educational upgrading of occupations is a response to the available supply rather than to changes in technical skill requirements. TABLE V-I: EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT OF WORKERS IN SELECTED "DEAD END" OCCUPATIONS: 1950 AND I960 Occupations Median Years of School Completed14 1950 1960 Mail carriers 12.3 l2.7 Truck and tractor drivers 8.9 9.l Barbers 8.9 9.2 Railroad conductors 9.4 l0.5 Locomotive firemen l0.5 lO.7 Railroad brakemen 9.9 l0.8 9.0 8.7 Laborers (excluding farm) Although Rawlin's and Ulman's data indicate that the educational attainment for nonfarm laborers declined between 1950 and l960, the overall trend since at least 1948 has been the opposite. According to the Manpower Report ofthe President, 1974, the median number of school years completed by nonfarm laborers, and by workers in all other occu- pational classifications, has steadily increased. In l948 the median number of school years completed by nonfarm laborers was 8.0. This increased to 8.6 in l959, 9.8 in l968, and 11.4 in l973. Farmers and TOT farm laborers have the lowest levels of educational attainment of all occupational classifications, but that, too, has been increasing from 8.0 in 1948 to 8.6 in l959, 9.1 in 1968 and lO.7 in l973.15 Further evidence that the increasing educational attainment of the work force has been caused by factors other than the functional requirements of jobs was presented by Ann Miller in her analysis of the sample household enumeration conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census in October, l966.16 Miller compared the educational attainment of workers with the educational requirements according to Selected Characteristics of Occupations and found that, with few exceptions, the educational attainment of workers within each occupational classifica- tion* far exceeded functional requirements. Miller translated GED requirements into years of schooling in the following way: GED Educational Attainment l-3 Elementary 4 Some High School 5-6 Some College According to Miller's computations, over 78 percent of all males received at least some high school while only 42 percent of the jobs held by men required any education beyond elementary school. Twenty- six percent of the men had some college while l9.l percent of the jobs they held required it. For women over 84 percent had at least some high school even though only 4l percent of their jobs called fbr it and 22.5 *Miller used the occupational classifications of the DOT: (l) Profes- sional, Technical, Managerial, (2) Clerical and Sales, (3) Service, (4) Farming, (5) Processing, (6) Machine Trades, (7) Bench Work, (8) Structural Work, (9) Miscellaneous. 102 percent had some college whereas only 12.4 percent of the jobs called fOr that level of education. Miller concluded, . .it is hard to escape the conclusion that the high level of educational attainment in this country reflects a much broader set of social values than those related to purely occupational requirements.17 What Miller referred to as a "broader set of social values" may well be employers' preferences for relatively better educated workers no matter what the level of educational attainment is throughout the work force, even if it is far above that which is technically required on the job. At least that is the conclusion Jaffe and Froomkin drew in their analysis of the relationship between technological change and educational attainment.18 They took a different approach to this issue than did the researchers cited above in this section, but their data support the contention that the educational attainment of workers cannot be explained in terms of changing technical skill requirements of jobs. 19 and found that Jaffee and Froomkin studied sixty-two industries "the speed of technological change has little, if anything, to do with educational attainment. There is no discernable relationship between changes in output per worker in an industry and the educational levels "20 They studied of white- or blue-collar workers, male or female. changes in the output per worker in these industries between the years of l950 and l960. While the educational attainment differed among them, changes in the educational attainment of workers was not related to the 103 rates of technological change, measured in terms of output per worker.* For example, in local and highway passenger transportation the output per worker changed less than one percent per year while in coal- mining output increased over five percent annually. But the percentage of blue-collar workers who were high school dr0pouts remained virtually the same in each industry in those ten years. .In transportation 76 percent of the blue-collar workers in l950 were dropouts compared to 75 percent in l960. In coal mining 87 percent of the l950 and 1960 blue-collar workers were dropouts. Overall in those industries in which output per worker increased by less than 2 percent annually, and employment increased by less than l5 percent, 77 percent of the male blue-collar workers were dropouts compared to 72 percent in l960. The comparable figures for industries experiencing an increase in output per worker of 4 percent or more annually are 83 percent in l950 *The fact that an industry has experienced significant technological change or has substantially increased its productivity does not neces- sarily mean that jobs have generally been upgraded in terms of the skills required to perform them. Precisely the opposite phenomenon, a decline in the requisite skills may be the result of these chan es. This issue will be explored in the following section. A centra tenet of the technical theory, however, is that technological change and the growing productivity of the economy require an increasingly better educated work force in order for society to use that new knowledge to continue that expansion in productivity. If technological change lead- ing to continual growth in productivity occurs, and such changes are unrelated to the educational attainment of workers, whether or not the skill requirements are altered in the process, the technical theory would be called into question. It is interesting to note, however, that in Collins' study of the relationship between changes in the actual skill requirements of jobs, as a result of technological change, and educa- tional requirements, he found, "There is no difference in educational requirements between organizations which reported a rise in skill levels as a result of technological change, and organizations in which skill levels remained the same."21 104 and 76 percent in l960. Similar findings were obtained in their analysis of female blue-collar workers. The same observations also apply to clerical and sales workers. Again no relationship was found between the growth of an industry and changes in the educational attainment of these white-collar workers.22 In those instances where technological changes resulted in changes in the skills required on the job, the retraining involved did not necessitate additional years of schooling. Generally, such retraining was handled on the job within a period of a few weeks. As Jaffe and Froomkin pointed out, this finding is strongly supported by other re- searchers who have studied the effects of automation and technological change in general on jobs in several different industries.23 In the l9505 over one-half of the labor force worked without the benefit of a high school diploma, including over one-third of the non- professional white-collar workers and over two-thirds of all manual workers.24 High school dropouts were employed in more than half the occupations in the occupational structure in l950. If one assumes that today, however, the only kind of work which is suitable for high school dropouts is manual or farm labor, the higher unemployment rates of workers so educated still cannot be explained in terms of their lack of technical abilities or the nonexistence of jobs which they are technically qualified. In l950 about 32.5 million workers were employed in such jobs. In 1965 this figure increased to 38 niiiion.25 While the number of jobs supposedly suitable fbr high school dropouts has increased even though they constitute a smaller percentage of the jobs in the occupational structure, the number of drapouts in the civilian labor force declined during those years from 34,032,320 in l952 to 105 26 30,229,825 in l965. As Jaffe and Froomkin concluded, There are plenty of jobs in which workers with less than a high school diploma can perform at least satisfactorily enough to hold the jobs; not less than half the jobs were in this category in l960. Hence, the higher unemployment rate among dropouts of all ages must be attributed to the preference of emg;oyers who choose more highly educated work applicants. The nature of these preferences will be discussed in Chapter VI. Despite the limitations of the data presented above, they strongly indicate that the increasing educational attainment of the work force cannot be explained by changes in the technical skill requirements of jobs. When the educational attainment of even unskilled laborers increases, the technical theory is clearly deficient.* It is possible that employers seek out those who are relatively better educated, even if lesser educated people are available who could handle the job, because those who are better educated would be better employees from a technical or any other standpoint. If a high school graduate could adequately perform the duties, but a college graduate could provide superior service, it would be perfectly rational for the employer to hire the college graduate. In reality, this is certainly the logic which motivates some employers to raise their standards even when the job has not changed. While this explanation does not contra- dict the technical theory entirely, it does subvert the contentions that the correlation between low educational attainment and unemployment is *The median education for laborers entering the work force in the l950$ was ll.3 years compared to 6.9 years for those who retired in that decade. As Jaffe and Froomkin quipped, "American industry has been getting more educated workers, whether it needed them or not." (page 86) 106 due to the inability of these people to adequately perform on existing jobs due to their lack of the skills required on these jobs and that education has expanded in order to provide workers with skills without which they would be unemployable. In addition, the notion that more educated people are better workers is an empirical question which, although frequently accepted as an article of faith, is not justifiable on the basis of existing evidence. This question will be examined later in this chapter. A more adequate explanation has been suggested in terms of a "broader set of social values" and "employer preferences" for relatively better educated workers. Several key contentions of the class perspec- tive described in Chapter IV, are consistent, if not confirmed, by these data. If the relatively higher unemployment rates of those with fewer years of schooling cannot be explained in terms of the technical skills they do or do not possess, and if there are in fact jobs on which they could adequately perfonm, the difficulty they face in finding suitable employment appears to lie in the fact that, in terms of formal education, they are at the end of the line or at the bottom of the labor queue. The contention of the class perspective that educational requirements are used to limit access to some occupations and as'a means to identify and recruit workers with certain noncognitive traits are also plausible interpretations of these data. While it would be premature to conclude that each contention of the class perspective is confirmed, the central themes of that interpretation are consistent with these data. The con- ventional perspective, at least in terms of the causal relationship it purports between the technical skill requirements of jobs and the increasing educational attainment of workers is clearly an inadequate explanation. 107 The conventional argument that automation and technological change in general contribute to expansion of formal education is based, to a large extent, on the assumption that such changes upgrade the level of skills required in the occupational structure. This assump- tion will be examined in the fbllowing section. Technological Change and the Skill Requirements of Jobs It is widely believed that skill requirements throughout most of the occupational structure have been upgraded during the course of American history, particularly in the last few decades. Two basic types of changes, it is argued, have occurred as a result of techno- logical advances and the continual growth of knowledge. First, the technical skill requirements within occupations have been upgraded. Second, new jobs requiring more sophisticated skills have been created while many other jobs requiring little in the way of technical skill have been eliminated. While few would argue that the nature of work and the specific tasks performed by workers have not changed, there is some debate whether those changes have had the impact on skill require- ments which is popularly believed. The focus of this section is on how technological changes, particularly automation, have effected the functional requirements of jobs. In their review of over 500 bibliographic titles published between the early l9SOs and mid-l960s on the effect of technological change on the skill requirements of jobs, Horowitz and Herrnstadt concluded, FFrom the current literature one cannot generalize about the effects of auto- nation and technological change upon job content and skill requirements, "28 except to say that they differ. Many examples of skill upgrading 108 and downgrading were found in the jobs examined by these studies. Although the research reviewed by Horowitz and Herrnstadt focused pri- marily on factory and office jobs, and therefore was not representative of the entire work force, it is significant that, in light of the con- ventional wisdom, a systematic pattern of skill upgrading was not found. They proceeded to study changes which had occurred since the end of World War II in the work content and in the traits and preparation required of workers in five industries, selected in as wide a range as possible in order to draw conclusions which could be roughly applicable to American industry as a whole. These industries included slaughtering and meatpacking, rubber tires and tubes, machine shop trades, mechanical services, and banking. They focused on the changes which occurred within specific occupations although some attention was paid to shifts in the distribution of jobs in the occupational structure. They used job descriptions provided by the various editions of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, the DOT supplements, and Estimates as their sources of information. Their objective was to determine how skill requirements had changed over a fifteen year period of time. Their conclusion was basically, not much. The overall or net change in the skill requirements of occupations in these industries was remarkably small, despite the l5 years covered. One industry on balance had an increase, one a possible decline, but in each case the shift was modest. Moreover, substantive changes in occu- pational content were not common, and the number of obsolete occupations was few. However, the small net change in skill levels was the product of numerous offsetting changes in the various abilities needed for individual occupations in an industry. There was considerable change in occupational requirements and content, but on balance it was either incon- 2 sequential or inconclusive with respect to overall skill levels. 109 James R. Bright conducted a series of perhaps the most informative (and most frequently cited) case studies of the effects of mechaniza- tion and automation on the skill requirements of jobs. In l956 he ex- amined both the changes in skill requirements and shifts in the occupa- tional structure in thirteen of the most advanced automated production 30 His overall conclusion wasthat "automation does systems at that time. not necessarily result in a net upgrading of work-force skill require- ments to a major extent. In fact, automation often tends a) reduce the skill and training required of the work force."31 Eight years later, in a presentation befbre the National Commission on Technology, Automation and Economic Progress, Bright reaffirmed these findings.32 He posed six assumptions which constitute the basis of the upgrading theses: (l) automotive machinery requires higher levels of worker skill and training time, (2) it requires more maintenance atten- tion and/or higher maintenance skills, (3) more engineers and technicians are required to design, build, install and operate the machinery, (4) the machinery is introduced in such quantities at such short-term intervals that the impact is significant, (5) the average worker cannot meet the demands of the new machinery without extensive retraining, (6) unskilled workers are replaced by skilled workers when automation is introduced. His analysis showed that these contentions were either false or at best only applicable in a few instances. Bright developed a mechanization scale onto which each job he studied could be placed. At the lower levels of the scale worker skill requirements were upgraded as jobs moved up from one step to another. But with the introduction of modern automated machinery, the skills were 110 increasingly built into the machine. The contributions of the workers to the production process were reduced as the mechanization level of their jobs increased. Bright pointed out that some schools were train- ing sixth graders to work with computers and that the Department of Labor was training high school dropouts to be computer programmers as an example of how highly complex equipment does not necessarily require highly skilled operators, because the skill has been built into the machine. He concluded, "the net effect of automation in almost every plant I studied was still to reduce--or at least not to increase--the demand for skills and abilities of the direct labor force."33 Several case studies of the impact of technological change have been conducted over the years. In l969, Eva Mueller concluded the first cross-sectional survey which addressed this issue.34 In l967. 2,662 workers, a representative sample of the labor force, were inter- viewed in an attempt to assess the effects of technological change between l962 and l967. Mueller concluded that "the advanced technology is supported by very high levels of education among the work fOrce using 50phisticated equipment."35 She found that better educated workers were more likely to be working with the more advanced equipment and that few of those who worked with the more mechanized equipment felt overeducated or over- trained for their jobs. In fact when asked, "In connection with your future work do you feel that it would be useful for you to get additional education.or training, or is there a need for it?" 44 percent responded 36 In general, the data showed "the chance that a worker affirmatively. will adjust well to technological advance is, if anything, enhanced by education."37 But Mueller also concluded that "the survey was not able 111 to clarify the precise nature of the link between educational needs 38 and technological advance." Mueller stated that, Formal education should also make a worker adaptable and help him to meet the increased job demands, but the data are equally consistent with the hypothesis that employers sometimes set very high educational requirements for hir- 1ng, when these are not really a prerequisite for the work to be performed. They may do so on the supposition that completion of a good deal of fbrmal education is indica- t1ve of the personal capabilities which are needed for work with technologically advanced equipment.39 So although education may be linked to perfbrmance, Mueller's findings suggest that technical skill requirements may not be the basis of that link. Mueller's conclusions, clearly, are somewhat ambivalent, particu- larly concerning the precise nature of the relationship between educa- tional and technical skill requirements of jobs. Part of this ambiguity is a result of the fact that technical skill requirements of jobs were not examined directly. For example, the fact that better educated people are more likely to be in jobs utilizing more advanced equipment does not, in and of itself, prove that such education is a technical prerequisite. In light of Bright's findings, it may be that better educated workers are employed in jobs which require less ability than those positions held by their lesser educated colleagues. Also, the fact that workers believed more education would be useful in their future work merely serves to beg the question. Did these workers believe more education would provide them with skills they would need in the future, or would such education provide them with a credential, perhaps but not necessarily related to skill requirements, for a promotion they were seeking? Considering the fact that only 6 percent of those 112 who experienced a changeover in the machinery they worked with reported that formal training was undertaken as the principle means for learning new skills which were required as a result of that changeover,4o it appears likely that any felt need fbr more formal education was not based on technical grounds.* Mueller's study indicated no specific trend regarding the effects of technological advance on skill requirements. Although the thrust of her conclusions is that education is related to technological advance, by her own admission it remains unclear whether or not changes in the technical requirements of work have been significantly changed. In other words, the upgrading of skill requirements which is supposed to be associated with technological advance was not found. Social and Functional Meanings of Skill Evaluating and comparing levels of skill involved in performing various jobs is not easy to do. ‘The problem is compounded in longi- tudinal analyses because of the vast changes which have occurred in the world of work. The central point of confusion, however, lies in the fact that skill is often evaluated according to contemporary cul- tural standards or social conventions which have little to do with the actual, functional talents required of a particular task. The U.S. census occupational classification system is almost universally *Respondents were asked, "In order to work with the new equipment, did you have to learn anything new or did you acquire any new skills." and "How did you acquire the new skill or knowledge--did you learn it by your- self on the job? Did someone train you on the job? Or did you take a formal training program or course?" ‘Over 42 percent reported no need for training, 46 percent either trained themselves or were trained by someone else on the job, and 5 percent were trained through a combination of formal courses and on-the-job training. (page 64) 113 interpreted as a categorization of occupational groups ranked accord- ing to the skill levels required in the American occupational structure. No doubt that system was created in order to distinguish among jobs, at least in part, on the basis of skill. When comparing jobs at the extremes of the census occupational groupings the assumed differences in skills called for by those jobs is probably an accurate'interpreta- tion of the nature of the tasks performed. But when the middle range of occupational classifications are considered it is not always clear whether actual abilities or social prejudices are being ranked. Accord- ing to the U.S. census occupational groupings people whose jobs are classified as "operatives and kindred workers" are assumed to have greater skills than those who are classified as "farmers and farm laborers." While it may be true that assembly line workers use more sophisticated equipment than small family farmers, it is not necessarily true that line jobs demand higher levels of skill than farmers' duties require. Although farming is not considered to be a highly skilled profession, it is generally assumed that with the advent of modern agricultural machinery, today's farmer is a more highly skilled practitioner of his trade than was his predecessor. While today's farmer has more soph- isticated equipment at his disposal than the colonial farmer had, does that necessarily mean the contemporary farmer is more skilled?. Advocates of the upgrading thesis frequently base their argument on shifts in the occupational structure from what the Census Bureau has labelled blue-collar to white-collar jobs and on the growing number of people employed in what the Census Bureau designates as service occu- pations and service industries. While these trends have been occurring, they do not necessarily represent an upgrading of skill requirements. 114 Throughout this century the proportion of white-collar workers has steadily increased from l7.6 percent to 46.8 percent of the labor force. But, as Table V—2 shows, clerical occupations make up the lar- gest percentage of those jobs classified as white-collar occupations and they also constitute the fastest growing white-collar occupational group . . White-collar workers are generally considered to be the highly skilled, or at least the relatively higher skilled, members of the work force. The jobs are considered to be inherently more satisfying, working conditions are presumed to be better, and the pay is assumed to be much higher. But the distinction between white and blue-collar jobs has become blurred over time. Office work has become increasingly routinized and the advent of modern machinery has made a significant contribution to this trend. The parallels between office work and assembly line labor have become strikingly evident in recent years.41 Many blue-collar workers now earn more money than do clerical workers. In l969 the median salary of male clerical workers was $7,265 compared to $8,l72 for craftsmen. Several occupations categorized as operatives also received higher wages than the fastest growing segment of the white- collar occupations.42 The same patterns, although at lower income ranges, 43 apply to women as well.* The image of white-collar workers comes from *One might argue that this reflects an upgrading of the skills required of craftsmen and manual laborers. But in his book, Labor and Mongpoly Capital, Braverman has shown how the work of those whfi'are classified as craftsmen, at one time a highly skilled occupational group, has been broken down into a series of much lesser skilled jobs, while still retaining the classification of craftsmen. In construction, baking, meatpacking, print- ing, and furniture and clothing production, Braverman showed how processes once requiring skilled workers have been broken down into tasks requiring little, if any, skill. 115 .omm .n =.v~mp op ommp "xmm new usage cowpeaauuo some: zm .mcomcma vmxopaEme .mmm .oz Aehn_ .muwmmo ".u.a .coumcpgmmzv mamcmu we» mo smmcam .m.= .enmp magnum weave: one we uuagpma< paupumwpepm .m.= m=Pu=PL¢ acmsccm>ow .m.= .em .a =.cmopioomp aoAfle: use to moeoneueom Paoecapmez usage sweep mew: chap op ommp menu» on» to; spec "xmm am .copumpzaoa w>Puo< appmupsocoom on» we asosc cowuenauuo gowns: .mwpimn a mmwgmm Aoomp .mupmmo mcpuc_gg acme=Lm>ow ".o.o .coumcwsmmzv mamcmu as» ea zamgzm .m.= .nmmp o» weave Fmpcopoo "ease cmxma mew: ommp cg comp memo» mga toe mama "mmpeum "mmugaom o.m~ m.- w.¢— p.mp m.pm ¢.- m.mp p.~N m.m~ Amsmxgcz Lap—octaves: eo a a mmv ¢.m N.m e.o o.m n.m m.m m.¢ u.¢ m.¢ msmxgozmmpmm “.mm p.om N.¢m m.mm o.pm m.om p.~m o.m~ p.np Amgmxgoz LMFFOUIwuw;3_$o a a may ¢.~p ¢.~p m.¢~ m.NP m.m m.m o.m m.m o.m mgmxgoz pouwgmpu ¢.PN m.p~ m.¢~ m.m~ ¢.m~ ~.m~ m.m~ m.om ~.mm Amgmxgoz meFOUImuvgz yo u a may Top mg: 5.0.. 5m mé «.5 ad ad m.m Em“. unmuxm .mgoumsummcwsu< EB "flamers: m.m~ m.mm «.mm m.m~ F.¢~ p.m~ n.p~ o.m~ p.¢~ Amgoxgoz Lm—poonmpvnz $0 u a may m.¢P ~.¢~ ¢.~— m.m m.n w.o ¢.m n.¢ ~.¢ mgmxsoz paupcgumh can pmccwmmmwosa m.m¢ m.m¢ ¢.m¢ m.om m.pm «.mm m.e~ m.- m.- mgaxgoz sappouimuvn: cmmp onmp comp ommp ocmp ommp oump opmp comp mumom mom<4 4 ~4mwuecoeo acme useemeecw ueeuxm epe>wce uneuxm a mcmELew .mgoceeee ieweem aceemeecw .me>wueceeo .mwexgoz wow>wom w.— m.w e.pp m.m_ w.mm _.o_ .emo—peu we memo» . ages Le ceew saw: u o.em ~.mm “.we ~.ee “.wm ~.pe .aoeun sew; ee-mm we meow» geew saw: u —.N ~.m m.mp m.- N.oo “.mp emu—poo we meme» wees no snow new: a v.5v m.o~ o.mw ~.m~ m.mm ~.mm pee;Um new: emimm we mean» Leew saw: a e.~ ~.m_ o.e~ m.m~ m.me e.m_ aea__oo to need» ages so ceew new: a m.eo e.¢m m.mm F.mm n.5m w.~w peezum saw; enimu we memo» ceow new: a mcoxger eugeewx «geese: vegeewx mgexcez me_em stew ueeuxm meoxcez eeceewx meeegw a enamuwegu a peuweepu .mgeuegumwewee< a _eu_egumw peeewueeeuuo —_< e Eocene: . Fecewmmewegn. gnome euu mzh mo hszz~ u4moo .m.o ..o.a .eouoaaznesv uonaq no unusuwmmoa .m.a .vnma .unocauowm on» no uuomux Narmada” "oowsom 0h. 0.N h.n 0H.N n.0N h.HH HH.N h.@ 0.0 vo.H $.0H n.0H v0. m.o o.nd mm. a.vd m.ha mm. m.N 0.0 hm. H.v o.HH m0. m.m v.vu nh¢~ hm. m.n 0.0 nv.N 0.0N b.0H Hm.N n.0a H.v ¢M.H h.nu o.hH H0. «.0 m.MH nh. N.nA 0.0H an. H.N 5.0 an. m.n v.HH H0. H.a 0.0H Chad mo.a m.v 0.0 Nb.~ n.0N v.0H h0.N h.oa 0.0 nn.H 0.MN 5.5H mm. o.o Q.nd >0. 0.AH 0.5H mu. m.H 0.0 mm. o.« H.HH vm. 0.5 m.vd. 00mg 236 0m.H 0.0 H.0 md.n Q.Nn v.0a NH.M 0.NH H.v ca.a 0.0m d.mu 50. 0.0 $.nH mv. n.h H.0H 0N. h.~ 0.0 MN. h.N h.HH 5v. H.0 m.NA n0ad 0m.~ m.NH 0.0 hv.n o.mn m.a bu.n h.vd 0.0 NH.H d.o~ m.hd Hv. m.m m.vH 0v. «.0 v.md 5H. N.H 0.0 o“. v.« h.HH mm. H.v 0.HA 000d :\:z_ 3: 3 xxx: :2 3 xxx: :2 : z\32_ :2 3 s\3¢_ 32 a sxzz :2 3 xxx: :2 : zxsz. :2 s s\””_ s: 3 [’- nuoxuoz swam :uoxwo: uaouoneq np>aumuem0 cowocwx Afloauoao «mama uuoauuuuunwiud «Iowcau:a a know ocu>uom annuicoz a uuuuu a whooacd: Added-pouowm memaimmma when» oouooaum .eohuaoeueuneao descauomduoo an awoxuoz mudnscoz can opus: no Godunnauumwn unIHH> mAm¢B 237 Since 1947 the median nonwhite family income as a percentage of the median white family income has changed in the following way: Year Ratio of Nonwhite/White Median Family Income 1947 .54 1955 .55 1960 .55 1965 .55 1970 .64 1971 .63 1972 .62 1973 .60 1974 .6230 Again, however, while the ratio has been moving in the direction of greater equality, the absolute income difference betWeen these two groups has been getting larger. In 1947 the median white family income was $5,714 (1971 constant dollars) compared to $2,930 for nonwhites, a gap of $2,784. Comparable figures in 1971 were $10,672, $6,714, and $3,958. The gap between the median family income of whites and non- whites increased, therefOre, by $1,174. In other words, white families had $4,958 more dollars in 1971 than in 1947 compared to $3,784 addi- tional dollars for nonwhites.31 Nonwhite families, therefore, have been falling further behind whites since 1947. In addition, since a greater proportion of wives in nonwhite families work, income inequality is further suppressed by focusing on family income. When the income of unrelated individuals is the unit of analysis, the nonwhite/white ratio has declined. This ratio dropped from .71 in 1947 to .58 in 1960, then rose to .73 in 1965 and declined again to .67 in 1971.32 Much 238 has been made in recent years of the rising black middle class,33 but the facts do not support prevailing beliefs about the supposed equali- zation of the races, at least in terms of income. The occupational gains which have been made by some nonwhites, however, cannot be totally ignored. But what these gains reflect can be more accurately described as a trend towards polarization within the nonwhite community rather than as a movement towards a general equalization among various racial groups. The elites in the minority population have made some progress in recent years, but minorities con-4 tinue to be burdened with the disproportionate share of unemployment and poverty they have long endured. For example, among men 25 years of age and older, black income increased during the 19605 faster than did white income. But while the black/white median income rose from .54 in 1959 to .60 in 1972, an increase of 11 percent, the black/white median income ratio among those men with four years of college increased from .63 to .74, an increase of 17.5 percent. And while the income of black males increased faster than the income of white males within all but the clerical occupational category, the largest increase was among managers where the ratio of the medians increased 37 percent, from .53 to .73.34 For years better educated blacks fared worse relative to their white counterparts than did the lesser educated.35 Therefore, much of the progress made by the black educated elite could be attributed to the fact that they had the longest way to go. Unemployment At the other end of the occupational structure, the unemployed, nonwhites have traditionally suffered approximately twice as much 239 unemployment as whites, and this has not changed in recent years. In 36 and by the middle 1948 the nonwhite/white unemployment ratio was 1.69 of 1975 it reached 1.77.37 Among the unemployed, nonwhites constitute a disproportionate share of those who are unemployed for fifteen weeks or more, and this gap has changed little in recent years. Since 1963 about one out of five long term unemployed workers has been nonwhite.38 In terms of the official unemployment rate, therefore, the relative status of nonwhites has not changed. Year Official Unemployment Rate Percent Nonwhite of Those Unem- ployed for 15 Weeks or More White Nonwhite Nonwhite/ White 1948 3.5 5.9 1.69 --- 1955 3.9 8.7 2.23 --- 1960 4.9 10.2 2.08 --- 1963 5.0 10.8 2.16 26.0 1968 3.2 6.7 2.09 20.7 1970 4.5 8.2 1.82 18.7‘ 1973 4.3 8.9 2.07 22.9 1975 8.0 14.2 1.77 19.5 (2nd Qtr.) Source: Mappower Report of the President 1974, U.S. Department of Labor (Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974). Table A-22, p. 280. QuarterlygEconomic Report on the Black Worker, National Urban League Research De artment (Washington, D.C.: National Urban League, 1975 Tables 1 and 4, p. 5, 6. The official unemployment rate, of course, does not provide a completely accurate picture of the pervasiveness of unemployment. If discouraged workers and part-time workers seeking full-time work are added to the official rates, unemployment is more severe, and the 240 discrepancy between whites and nonwhites is even greater. Whereas the nonwhite/white unemployment ratio, according to the official rates, was 1.77 in the second quarter of 1975, when these latter two groups are included, the ratio rises to 1.83.39 In addition, among those not work- ing, whites are more frequently voluntarily unemployed. In the first quarter of 1975 91.3 percent of the whites not in the labor force did not want a job at that time while 8.0 percent did. For_nonwhites the comparable figures were 82.3 percent and 17.2 percent.4o Unemployment is particularly acute among young workers and the nonwhite/white discrepancy is greater for the young. For example, the unemployment rate among workers between the ages of 20 and 24 has generally been twice the national unemployment rate. For males between the ages of 20 and 24 the nonwhite/white unemployment ratio increased from 1.83 in 1948 to 1.94 in 1973. Comparable figures for women were 2.43 and 2.51.41 More critical, however, is the increasing unemploy- -ment among teenagers and the gap between nonwhite and white teenagers which has increased rapidly in recent years. The unemployment rate for nonwhites between the ages of 16 and 19 was 27.2 in 1964 compared to 14.8 for whites. In 1974 the nonwhite teenagers unemployment rate rose to 32.9 while for whites this figure dropped to 14.0. The non- white/white teenage unemployment ratio therefore jumped from 1.8 to 2.4 in ten years.42 Again, if previous job experience contributes to a person's ability to secure gainful employment, the rising teenage unemployment rate, particularly among nonwhites, coupled with the rising college enrollment rates among nonwhites suggests that the minority population will become further polarized in the future. 241 Poverty Closely linked to the problem of unemployment is the problem of poverty. A brief examination of America's poor people provides further evidence that the gains some minorities have made in employment reflect a polarization within the minority community rather than an equalization between whites and nonwhites. Michael Harrington may have awakened the nation to the existence of poverty in the United States in the early 19605,43 and the Great Society programs may be responsible for reducing the percentage of people in poverty in half between 1959 and 1974.44 Despite this pro- gress, however, the proportion of nonwhites among the nation's poor has increased during these years. In 1959 18.1 percent of all whites and 56.2 percent of all nonwhites lived in low income families. By 1974 only 8.9 percent of all whites and 29.5 percent of all nonwhites were officially defined as poor. The ratio of the percentage of non- whites to whites living in poverty, however, increased from 3.10 to 3.31.45 Recognizing that the official poverty line was set so low that it excludes from the official ranks of the poor many families who in fact live in poverty, the Census Bureau has also calculated the per- centage of people living on incomes between 100 percent and 125 percent of the official poverty level. Again, nonwhites have constituted an increasingly disproportionate share of this group since 1959.46 (See Table VII-7.) So while some nonwhites have improved their economic status relative to whites, in recent years the poor, like the unemployed, have been comprised of an increasingly nonwhite population. While the elites of the nonwhite p0pulation have made some progress 242 TABLE VII-7. PERSONS BELOW THE LOW INCOME LEVEL AND BETWEEN 100 PERCENT AND 125 PERCENT OF THE LOW INCOME LEVEL, BY RACE: Nonwhite/White Ratio of Percent of Persons Below the Low Income Level SELECTED YEARS 1959-1974 Nonwhite/White Ratio of Percent of Persons Between 100 Percent - 125 Percent Year_ of Low Income Level 1959 3.10 1.23 1965 3.54 1.66 1969 3.26 2.44 1970 3.23 2.11 1971 3.12 2.13 1972 3.54 1.95 1974 3.31 2.32* *This 2.32 figure is based on the percentage of black persons living at this income level while the remaining figures are based on all nonwhite persons. While this ratio would be slightly smaller if all nonwhites were included, the dif- ference would not be great. For example, the 1974 ratio of nonwhites to whites below the low income level is 3.31 com- pared to the black/white ratio of 3.52. Sources: "Money Income and Poverty Status of Families and Persons in the United States: 1974," Current Pppulation Reports, Series P-60 No. 99, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974) Table 15, p. 18. Statistical Abstract of the United States 1974, Bureau of the Census, U. S. Department of Cammerce (Washington, D. C: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1974) No. 633, p. 390. 243 relative to whites, there is little evidence of such progress at the top of the corporate structure in the United States. Ownership of pro- ductive assets, which is practically synonymous with power in the United States, remains almost entirely in the hand5.of white America. As of 1966 blacks owned just 1.9 percent of the following assets: money in banks, government bonds, stocks, farm equity, pusiness equity, and equity in homes.47 In 1973 the two largest black owned businesses, Motown Records and Johnson Publishing Company, did not even appear on £91202 magazine's list of the 1,000 largest industria1 companies in the United States. In fact, the l,OOOth company with $80.4 mi11ion in sales that year had more than the combined total of Motown ($46.0 million) and Johnson ($27.8 million).48 Only 3.9 percent of nonwhite income came from self-employment while just 2.1 percent resulted from property ownership in 1971. The ratio of nonwhite per capita income to per capita income of the total population accruing from self-employment 49 Thus the American was .31 and for property income the ratio was .17. power structure, as indicated by capital ownership, remains virtually all white. The Role of Education Anyone who watches television, visits the urban affairs department of any large corporation, or observes a local, state, or federal unit of government is likely to see some nonwhite faces which would not have been visible a few years ago. As indicated earlier, since the end of World War II the nonwhite/whitefamily income ratio has increased, although it has been on the decline in the 19705, and the ratio of nonwhite/white individual income also increased during the 19605 before 244 dropping again in the 19705. Meanwhile, the educational attainment of nonwhites and whites has consistently moved in the direction of greater equality during these years. But to what extent has education con- tributed to the intermittent success that at least some nonwhites have had? One thing which is clear is that much more progress has been made in equalizing educational attainment than in equalizing income, as shown in Table VII-8. I While better educated minorities have long earned more money and held better jobs than lesser educated minorities, what little progress has periodically occurred regarding the status of nonwhites relative to whites can be accounted for by a combination of factors, education being a minor one at best. Internal migration is one major factor which explains the improve- ment in black male income relative to whites during the 19505 and 19605. Between 1949 and 1969 the black/white male income ratiOn increased from 52.5 to 60.1.50 During these years there was a substan- tial migration of blacks from the South to other parts of the country, where wages have traditionally been higher. In 1950, 68 percent of the nation's blacks lived in the South compared to 53 percent who lived in that region in 1970.51 As Table VII-9 shows, except in the South, the relative status of black males has changed little within regions. Therefore, much of the improvement in the relative status of black males is due to movements from a low wage region to higher paid regions rather than from any reduction of discrimination. Another contributing factor to the improved occupational status of minorities has been the wave of civil rights legislation passed since 245 TABLE VII-8. RATIOS OF NONWHITE/WHITE FAMILY INCOME AND MEDIAN YEARS OF SCHOOL COMPLETED. SELECTED YEARS, 1950-1974 Ratio of Median Number of School Years Completed Yee5_ Family Income Ratio (25 Years of Age and Older) 1950 .54 .71 1960 .55 .76 1970 .64 .83 1972 .62 .85 1974 .62 .89 ' Ratio of % Completing 4 or Ratio of % Completing 4 or More Years of High School More Years of College (leg: (25 Years of_Age and Older) (25 Years of Age and Older) 1950 .38 .34 1960 .50 .43 1970 .63 .53 1972 .65 .55 1974 .70 .57 Sources: The Social and Economic Status of the Blac§_Population in the united States, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Com- merce (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 1974) Table 9, p. 25. Digest of Educational Statistics, 1974, U.S. Department of Health, Edhcation, and welfare. Office offi Education (Washington, D.C.: .U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974) Table 14, p. 14. 246 TABLE VII-9. RATIO OF BLACK/WHITE MALE INCOME BY REGION, SELECTED YEARS, 1949-1969 Region Year 1.952 1.9.5.9. 1.9.5.9. North East 74.7% 71.9% 75.3% North Central 81.2% 76.6% 79.8% West 73.6% 71.1% 71.9% South 50.0% 46.7% 55.8% U.S. 52.5% 53.0% 60.1% Source: David H. Swinton and Julian Ellison, A re ate Personal Income of the Black opu at1on 1n t'e' . . .' - (New York: Black Economic Research Center, 1973) p. 45. 1964.52 Despite the inadequacies of the federal government's enforce- ment effOrt,53 some opportunities have undoubtedly opened up for minor- ities as a result of this legislation and the litigation which has followed. In 1964 fewer than one out of five black workers was in a white collar occupation compared to approximately one out of three in 1974. Among blue collar workers there was significant progress in terms of the number who left the ranks of unskilled laborers and became skilled craftsmen and operatives. And the decline in the proportion of nonwhites in service occupations accelerated after 1964.54 Formal education has undoubtedly contributed to the upward mobility of some minorities. But in general the payoff for a given level of educational attainment remains greater for whites than for nonwhites, even when the quality of education is controlled.55 Since a dispropor- tionately large number of nonwhites are poor, if education is to contri- bute to the elimination of poverty and is to perform an equalizing role, then it is the poor and particuarly the nonwhite poor who need educational 247 benefits the most. But in a study of twelve urban ghettos Harrison found that whites on the average earn twice as much fOr each year of school completed as nonwhites. The weekly wage of white high school graduates was $25 higher than that of whites who never entered high school while the comparable difference for nonwhites was $8.33. In other words, the payoff of a high school diploma was three times greater for whites than 56 Those nonwhites who have been able to reach the upper for nonwhites. end of the occupational structure apparently have needed more education than whites in order to do so. The median number of school years com- pleted by nonwhite professionals and managers in 1959 was 15.1 compared to 13.4 for whites. Comparable figures for 1973 were 16.2 and 15.5.57 While it is difficult to pinpoint the effect of formal education on racial inequality, all things considered it appears that it has been given far more credit than it deserves in terms of reducing that inequality. The economic welfare of minorities has improved since World War II. More are in high skilled jobs and fewer are in low skilled jobs. They earn more money and fewer live in poverty. But the same is true, if not more so, for whites. The position of minorities relative to the majority population has not substantially changed. While some of the nonwhite educated elites have been better able to capitalize on their education, both absolutely and relatively, than were their counterparts of a few years ago, this appears to be more indicative of a polarization within the minority community rather than an equalization between whites and nonwhites. 248 One factor which partially explains the economic position of minor- ities is that they are more dependent on their female members for their income than are whites. More minority families are headed by women and more minority wives are forced to work in order to make ends meet.58 As in the case of minorities, education is frequently cited to be a key to improving the economic opportunities of women. The following seCtion will examine how effectively women have been able to capitalize on their education and how the general economic status of women relative to men has changed in recent years. Sexual Economic Eguality The women's movement in America can be traced at least as far back 59 with perhaps the first large scale organi- as 1650 and Ann Hutchinson zing occurring at the Women's Rights Convention in Seneca Falls, New York in 1848.60 The development of the movement, however, has been quite uneven in that there have been periods of intense activity and other times when the feminist struggle was, for all practical purposes, non- existent. For example, the 19505, a period of relatively little feminist activity, was followed by a strong resurgence of the movement beginning in 5‘ And during the the early 19605 and continuing up to the present time. 19605 women began to regain some of the ground they gradually lost over a number of years to men in terms of the relative levels of educational attainment. The focus of this section will be, therefOre, on changes in the economic status of women which occurred during the 19605 and 19705. In recent years women have become more active participants in the United States economy. More women are working, they constitute an increasing proportion of the labor force, and more families are dependent 249 on the income earned by their female members. If ever there was a time when women worked just to bring a few extra dollars into the family and were marginal to the nation's productivity, the work performed by women can certainly no longer be characterized in this manner. This is particularly true for racial minorities. The percentage of all women 16 years of age and older in the labor force, increased from 37.8 percent in 1960 to 44.7 percent in 1973.62 For nonwhite women the labor force participation rate increased from 48.2 percent to 49.1 percent.63 Women constituted 32.3 percent of the labor force in 1960 and 38.0 percent in 1973.64 These figures reflect an increase in the labor force participation rates of young married women as well as single women and older married women returning to work. While less than 30 percent of married women between the ages of 25 and 34 years of age were working in 1963, over 40 percent were employed in 1973.65 More women have assumed the role of the breadwinner. In 1965 9.0 percent of all white families and 23.7 percent of all nonwhite families were headed by women. By 1975 these figures reached 10.5 percent and 35.3 percent.66' There are many married women, with a working husband present in the family, who are forced to work because of economic necessity. In 1968, 30 percent of all working women had husbands whose incomes were between $3,000 and $7,000 at a time when the official poverty level for an urban family of four was $6,567. In addition, 23 percent were single and 17 percent were widowed, divorced, or separated from their husbands. In other words, at least 70 percent of the working women were earning money that was essential 250 in order to provide themselves and their families with the basic neces- sities of 1ife.67 In addition, working wives contributed approximately 25 percent of the total income of families earning more than $7,000. For families in the $10,000-$15,000 range, working wives contributed 28 percent of the total family income.68 Clearly women work for the same reason men do; they need the money. As Gloria Steinem pointed out, "More women than men may be working out of that motive, since the jobs open to women are far less likely to offer a sense of accomplishment, respect in society, or other rewards."69 More women are working today and they are working in order to provide the necessities, not just the luxuries, of life. The question which arises is to what extent the educational gains made by women, and the resurgence of the women's movement in the 19605, and their increasing participation in the economy have been translated into greater economic equality between the sexes. Occupation The occupational status of women, in terms of the nine major census classifications, has improved throughout this century and that improve- ment has continued through the 19605 and 19705.70 But relative to men their position has declined. The female/male ratio of the percentage of each group entering professional and technical occupations has steadily decreased, although at a slower rate in recent years. This ratio was 2.4 in 1900, 1.69 in 1950, 1.14 in 1960 and 1.07 in 1973. At the same time, women have accounted for an increasing proportion of clerical workers. This ratio has risen during these years as follows: 1.43 in 1900, 4.34 in 1950, 4.21 in 1969, and 5.20 in 1973.7] Tab1e VII-10 shows .251 58 .o .3... 632. .32 .0633 ufiufium 28.538 6.: ".ud 5006:2435 303 no acuauuumoo .m.D .vrma uncoodmoum and No vacuum uozumdd: ”oowsom a - mm. 0.H m.v nh.~ 0.H~ m.h NH. m.o h.h nh. m.m~ o.mH no. V.” m.o~ on.m n.vn 0.0 ma.a m.0 H.0 m.v 0.nu _ho.H m.v~ 0.nH nhma . a vn. o.a n.m v~.n h.H~ 5.0 50. m.o m.h vb. m.va 0.@H mo. H.A A.ON 00.0 m.vn H.h m~.~ 0.5 0.0 m.v ~.vn_ vo.d m.va o.vH chad 0v. v.v 0.a 00.n h.nn m.0 mo. «.0 «.5 0h. «.ma 0.m~ mo. o.~ o.mu _Hn.v n.0m «.5 nm.a h.h o.m 0.0 0.na vd.a v.~a m.o~ o0od _ {auxiumxzhmzkasimu:__:\amzz\mmz u:_:\mux _ i. . . i nuoxuoz Baum muoxwoz auouonoq mo>auauomo oowucwx _ Huuwwoau moamm mwoumuum«c«Ifl¢ Hauwznooa a Hams oow>uom luauicoz a uuuuu a «wooded: auscumuououm mnmuio0md undo» GOUOOHOm .COdudUdemdeU Hocowuamsouo up muoxuoz panama one can: 00 segusnawumao :v_1HH> ”4048 252 how the distribution of male and female workers changed between 1960 and 1973. Minority women, however, have made some progress relative to white women. For example, the female nonwhite/white ratio of the percentages of each group in professional occupations has increased from .57 in 1964 to .80 in 1974 while the ratio in service occupations has declined from 2.95 to 1.95 during these years.72 The seeming parity of the proportion of men and women in profes- sional occupations suppresses important inequalities within that occu- pational group. Men predominate in the higher paid professions while women are more likely to be found in the lower paid areas. For example, in 1970 95 percent of the lawyers and judges, 91 percent of the.physicians and 98 percent of the engineers were men. On the other hand, 70 percent of all teachers (except college and university), 59 percent of all social and recreation workers and 81 percent of all librarians were women.73 Comparable figures for 1960 indicates that little change has occurred in the distribution of men and women within professional occupations. In 1960, 96 percent of the lawyers and judges, 93 percent of the physicians and 98 percent of the engineers were men while 72 percent of all teachers, 63 percent of all social and recreation workers, and 85 percent of all 74 Considering the fact that women comprised a librarians were women. larger proportion of the labor force in the early 19705 than they did in 1960, the barriers women have faced were even stronger than these - figures indicate. It is possible that the educational gains made by women in the 19605 and the recent revival of feminist activity in general will favor— ably influence the relative occupational status of women in the middle 253 and late 19705. Perhaps a more complete analysis of specific occupa- tions would uncover significant progress which this brief examination has not detected. However, it is safe to conclude that women have not made the progress relative to men that nonwhites in general have made relative to whites. In fact, it appears that if the position of women, in terms of their occupational status relative to men, has changed at all it has changed for the worse. Income While the Equal Pay Act of 1963 requires employers to provide equal pay fOr men and women doing similar work, the income gap between men and women has increased since that time. Among year-round, full-time workers, the median income of women was 63.9 percent of the male median in 1955, 59.6 percent in 1963, and 57.2 percent in 1974.75 As Table VII-ll indicates, the income of women either dropped further behind or remained practically the same relative to men in every occupational category and educational level during the 19605. These data suggest that even if every woman was a professional worker or had five or more years of college, they would still have earned less than three dollars for every five earned by men in 1960, and the same would have been true ten years later. Black women have been catching up with white women. The black/ white median income ratio increased from .61 to .84 between 1959 and 1969 and then again to .91 in 1972.76 However, the income gap between men and women in general was not reduced at all in the 19605 nor has it been reduced in the 19705. 254 TABLE VII-11. MEDIAN INCOME 0F FEMALE WORKERS AS A PERCENTAGE OF MALE INCOME BY OCCUPATION AND BY EDUCATION: 1960 AND 1970 Occupation (14 years of age and older) _l_9_6_0 191p Professional and technical workers 57.8% 57.7% Managers and Administrators 45.2% 48.9% Sales Workers ' 30.2% 27.4% Clerical Workers 62.3% 58.3% Operatives 55.6% 55.4% Service Workers (except private household) 47.9% 45.6% Education (25 years of age and older) High school - 4 years 40.1% 38.7% College ' l - 3 years 40.3% 37.7% College - 4 years 45.0% 44.1% College - 5 or more years 58.5% 58.7% Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States 1972, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972) No. 536, p. 328. Pamely Roby, "Women and American Higher Education," The Annals of the Amegieen Aeegemy of Political and Social Science, November, 9 , p. 132. Unemployment Unemployment trends in recent years further indicate that the economic status of women, relative to men, has not improved. The ratio of the female/male unemployment rate has increased from 1.09 in 1960 to 1.34 in 1970 and 1.40 in 1974.77 Women have constituted an increasing proportion of those unemployed for fifteen weeks or more. Of those workers unemployed for this length of time 34.3 percent were women in 1963 compared to 40.8 percent in 1973.7.8 The higher unemployment rates of women can be explained in part by the fact that women are more likely to leave work in order to tend to household duties. While some obser- vers might view this as voluntary unemployment, it is highly questionable 255 that women who feel coerced into returning to the home would take this position.79 But the increasing participation of women in the labor force suggests that, if anything, more women want to work and that the growing discrepancy between the male and female unemployment rates is not a function of voluntary unemployment on the part of women. The unemployment rate of nonwhite women relative to white women has not changed significantly since 1960. The ratio of female nonwhite] white unemployment rates was 1.77 in 1960, 1.72 in 1970 and 1.75 in ‘ 1974.80 Among the long term unemployed the relative position of nonwhite and white women has also changed little with whites accounting for approximately three times the number of nonwhites in this group each 8] While the status of black women relative to white year since 1963. women has not deteriorated, in terms of unemployment rates, women in general have fallen further behind men. Poverty Another way to view the economic disparities between men and women is to compare the economic status of families headed by men with those headed by women. If sex discrimination is viewed in these terms, then women are falling much further behind men than individual comparisons suggest, and the consequences of sex discrimination affect a more diverse segment of the population than just the female members. When a family's economic status is hindered by sex discrimination the children, both male and female, and other male members of the family suffer. Often it is not just a matter of a few dollars of income that is lost each year. Female headed families are much more likely to be in poverty, and this likelihood has increased in recent years. The situation is particularly 256 acute for racial minorities. While the percentage of families headed by women has increased in recent years, the median income of Such families has declined relative to families headed by men. The median income of female headed families as a percentage of male headed families was 50.7 in 1960, 48.6 in 1970 and 44.7 in 1973.82 The female headed/male headed ratio of the percentages of each family type living on income below the low income level was 2.38 in 1959, 4.59 in 1970 and 5.80 in 1974.83 As indicated earlier, the percentage of black families headed by women has increased much faster than that of white families. The median income of such black families has been approximately 62 percent of what comparable white families have earned since 1967,84 and the percentage of female headed black families in poverty has been around twice as high as whites since 1959.85 The constancy of the relative economic status of black and white female headed families coupled with the greater increase in black families headed by women indicate how the combination of sexism and racism have contributed to the inequalities between blacks and whites in general. Between 1970 and 1973 the percentage of children under 18 years of age living in families headed by women increased from 10.2 to 13.0. For black families the increase was from 31.4 percent to 39.0 percent. In 1972 the percentage of children living in poverty was 14.2. In families headed by men 8.3 percent of the children lived in poverty compared to 53.9 percent of the children in female headed families. But in black families headed by men 23:6 percent of the children lived in poverty 86 compared to 71.2 percent of those in female headed families. If the socio—economic background of an individual effects his or her life 257 chances, then it is clear that sex discrimination effects those chances of many males as well as females. Children brought up in families headed by females generally are disadvantaged and they are much more likely to be brought up under poverty conditions. ‘The growing number of female headed families, and of children brought up in them, and the declining relative economic status of those families portend greater inequality in the future. Again, the situation is particularly bleak for racial minorities. Sex discrimination does not effect just a few middle-class women who are marginal to the economy or who want to work in order to bring a few extra dollars into the family. While women are still concentrated in positions which have traditionally been “women's" jobs, they have become increasingly vital to the economic productivity of the United States. At least 70 percent of the working women earn money which pro- vides the basic necessities of life for themselves and their families. Sex discrimination limits not only the life chances of many women, it also effects the opportunities of men who are brought up in families which are dependent on the earnings of their female members, families which comprise an increasing proportion of all family units in the United States. Women do earn more money today. More women are working in higher status jobs today than in previous years. Fewer women live in poverty. But as in the case of racial minorities, while there has been absolute improvement in the economic status of women, little progress has been made relative to the dominant group in American society. Nonwhite women 258 have made some progress relative to white women, but for women in general if there has been any change in their economic status relative to men, it has been for the worse. Conclusion Since World War II, and particularly during the 19605, formal educa- tion has expanded substantially in almost every industrialized country. This is true for both communist and non-communist countries. In the United States and in most of the other industrialized nations, formal educational attainment has become more equal, although important class distinctions still remain. Despite these trends, economic inequality 87 The United States is not alone in has remained largely unaffected. its failure to translate greater educational equality into greater economic equality. In the United States not only has the distribution of income re- mained constant while the distribution of wealth has been increasingly concentrated at the top for the population in general, but the economic status of minority groups relative to the majority has remained basically unchanged. A more detailed examination of specific occupations, indus- tries, age groups or geographic regions might reveal pockets of progress which have not been uncovered here, but it is doubtful that the overall trend described above would be controverted. In fact, the closer one looks the greater the discrepancies appear to be. For example, while greater proportions of women have moved into professional positions in recent years, women made virtually no progress in gaining_greater access to the higher paid professions such as law, medicine, or engineering during the 19605. The unemployment rate for young nonwhites, particularly 259 teenagers, has increased at a much faster rate than that of young whites, even though it is the younger nonwhites who have made the greatest educational gains relative to whites. And while the income of black males increased relative to white males during the 19505 and 19605, there was little change within specific geographic locations. The trends described in this chapter are in direct contradiction with what the conventional perspective would predict. This does not mean that formal education, alone, was or is expected to eliminate racial discrimination and economic inequality in general, or that abso- lute economic equality has ever been a conscious social policy objective. But the increasing investment made in formal education and the efforts made to create a more equal distribution of educational resources should have resulted in a more distinct trend towards economic equality than has occurred if the conventional perspective accurately reflected social reality. Perhaps one could argue that technological advance has accelerated in recent years and that the educational upgrading which has taken place has been insufficient to keep pace. What is needed, therefore, is more education and continued pressure to further equalize educational oppor- tunities. But as the findings of Chapters V and VI indicated, this is not the case. If anything the educational attainment of the population has surpassed the level which technological changes have required. Jobs are not left unfilled because of a lack of trained manpower. In fact, nany workers are unable to find jobs for which they are fully qualified, in part because others who are relatively better educated though not necessarily better qualified, have taken them. Underemployment and a shortage of jobs for which many unemployed workers are qualified appear 3260 to be the problems rather than shortages of adequately skilled workers and surpluses of untrained workers. The emphasis employers place on noncognitive attributes and their use of educational credentials to sort and select people for various slots within their organization on the basis of the relative educational attainment of workers rather than on the basis of an absolute level of education deemed necessary for the technical skill requirements of jobs, provide further evidence that technology and education are not linked in the manner portrayed by the conventional perspective. In light of these findings, it is not sur- prising to find that the expansion and equalization of formal education have not been translated into greater economic equality. The conventional perspective in general, and human capital theory in particular, are clearly inadequate frameworks for understanding the linkages between education and the occupational structure, and for explaining economic inequality in our society. The class perspective, which focuses on structural rather than individualistic explanations for the distribution of rewards is supported by these findings and appears to provide a much more satisfactOry framework for understanding the relationship between education and jobs and for understanding inequality in the United States. If greater economic equality is a socially desirable objective, how is it to be achieved? Obviously, this is a highly complex question which no individual or group of high powered politicians or generously funded social scientists have been able to answer. In the following con- cluding chapter, however, some general guidelines will be discussed, in light of the major conclusions of this study, for moving in the direction of greater economic equality. REFERENCES 1Edward Banfield, The Unheavenly City (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1970). Richard Herrnstein, "1.0." Atlantic Monthly, September, 1971. Arthur R. Jensen, "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achieve- ment?" Harvard Educational Review, Winter, 1969. Robert Nisbet, Twilight of Authority (New York: Oxford University Press, 1975). 2U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Po ulation Re orts, Series P-ZO No. 279, "Population Profile of the United States: 1974” (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975). 3Christopher Jencks, et a1. Ine ualit (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1973). Frederick Moste er an Daniel P. Moynihan (Eds.) On Equalitylof Educational Opportunity (New York: Random House, 1972). 4Peter M. Blau, The Dr anizationgj;Academic Work (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1973). S. M. oodman, The Assessment of School Quality_ (Albany: New York State Education Department, 1959). W. G. Mollenhopf and S. D. Melville, A Studylof Secondapy School Characteristics as Belated to Test Scores, ResearCh Bulletin 56-6 (Princeton: Educational Testing Service, 1956). 5James 5. Coleman, et a1., Eguality of Educational Opportunity, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966). Jesse Burkhead. Input and Output in Large-City High Schools (Syracuse: Syracuse Univer- sity Press,1967). James McPartland, "Should We Give Up on School Desegregation," Johns Hopkins Magazine, 1970. Thomas F. Pettigrew, "The Case for Racial Integration," in E. A. Schuler, T. F. Hoult, D. L. Gibson, W. B. Brookover (Eds.) Readings in Sociology (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1974). W. H. SewelT'and V1 P. Shah, ocial Class, Parental Encouragement and Educational Aspirations," American Journal of Sociolo , 1968. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Racial Isolation in the PuEIic Schools (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967). 6W. 8. Brookover, et a1., Elementary §ghgol Social Enyiropments and Achievement (East Lansing: College of Urban Development, Michigan State University, 1973). Coleman, 19;, cit, Edward McDill and Leo Rigsby, The Academic I a t of du a ional Cli es (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Un versity.Press, l973 . Ray C. Rist, "Student Class and Teacher Expec- tations: The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy in Ghetto Education," Haryard Educational Review, August, 1970. Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson. Pygmalign in the Classroom (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968). 26? 262 76. William Domhoff, Who Rules America? (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1967) and The Hi her CirclesiiNew York: Vintage Books, 1971). Christopher Jencks an David Riesman, The Academic Revolution (New York: Doubleday, 1968). Jack Ladinsky, "Higher Education and Work Achievement Among Lawyers," Sociological Quarterly, Spring, 1967. Carolyn Cummings Perrucci and Robert Perrucci, ”Social Origins, Educa- tional Contexts, and Career Mobility," American Sociological Review, June 1970. L. M. Sharp, Education and Employment: The Early Careers of Colle e Graduates (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1970)I Erwin O. Smigei, The Wall Street Lapyer (New York: Free Press, 1964). 8Jencks, loc. cit., p. 20. 9Lester C. Thurow, "Education and Economic Equality," The Public Interest, Summer, 1972, p. 70. 1Ogigest of Educational Statistics 1972, U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare, Office of Education (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973) Table 12, p. 14. nReynolds Farley, "The Economic Status of Blacks: Have the Gains of the 19605 Disappeared in the 19705?" Paper presented to the 70th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, San Francisco, August, 1975. 12Man L. Sorkin, "On the Occupational Status of Women, 1870-1970," The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, July, 1973, p. 240. 13The Social and Economic States of the Black Population in the United States, Bureau of'the Census, U} f Department OT’Commerce (Naggington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974), Table 68, p. . 14M. J. Eash, “Grouping: What Have We Learned?" Educational Leadership, April, 1961. Roger Hughes Kariger, "The Relation of Lane Grouping to the Socio-Economic Status of Parents in Three Junior High Schools,“ Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1962. 15Opportunities for Women in Higher Education, Carnegie Commission on Higher Education (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1973). 16sabr1e1 Kolko, Wealtp_epd Poweggin America (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1962). Lawrence Thomas, The Occupational_Structpge and Education (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1956) p. 66. His- torical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1957, Bureau of the Census,‘U.ST Department of Commerce (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1960) Series 699-117, p. 166. 17 18 Kolko, loc. cit., p. 14. Ibid., p. 34. 19Social Indicators 1973, U.S. Department of Commerce (Washington, f D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973) Table 5/10, p. 179. 263 onhurow, 1oc. cit., p. 70. 21Leonard Berkey, "The Internal Colonial Model of Race Relations in the United States: An Empirical Test," Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Michigan State University, 1974, p. 45. 22Dorothy S. Projector and Gertrude S. Weiss, Surveylof Financial Characteristics of Consumers (Washington, D.C.: Federal Reserve Board, 1966). Citediin David M. Gordon, "Trends in Poverty," in Gordon (Ed.) Problems in Political Economy: An Urban Perspective (Lexington: D. C. Heath and'Company, l97ll'p. 244. 23Gordon, loc. cit., p. 244. 24"Who Has the Wealth in America," Business Week, August 5, 1972. 25Manpower Report of the President 1974, U.S. Department of Labor (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974) Table A-l4, p. 271. 26Ibid., Table A-22, p. 280. Quarterly Economic Report on the Black Worker, National Urban League Researc partmentTTWashington, D.C.: National Urban League, 1975) Table 4, p. 6. Both of these documents are based on data provided by U.S. Department of Labor. 27Job Losers eavers and Entrants: Traits epg_lrenQ§a Special Labor Force Report 157, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 1973, Table 5, p. A-4. Employment and Unemployment in 1971, Special Labor Force Report 178, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Depart- ment of Labor, 1975, Table 10, p. A-12. QuarterlylEconomic Report on The Black Worker, loc. cit., Tables 3 and“4, p. 61 28QuarterlyEconomic Report on the Black Worker, loc. cit., p. 1 and 5. 17What's the Real Unemployment Rate?" Dollars and Sense, November, 1974. . 29Elliot Abrams, "The Quota Commission," Commentary, October, 1972. Daniel Bell, "On Meritocracy and Equality," Public Interest, Fall, 1972. Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore, “Some Principles of Stratification," American Sociological Review, April, 1945. Milton M. Gordon, Assimilation in American Life (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964). Irving Kristol, "About Equality," Commentapy, November, 1972. 3oU.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-60, No. 100, "Household Money Income in 1974 and Selected Social and Economc Characteristics of Households," (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govern- ment Printing Office, 1975) Table 1, p. 3. The Social_end Economic Status of the Blaek Population in the United States 1974, loc. cit., TaBle 9, p. 25. §tetistic§lABstract of the United States 1973, 10c. c_it_., No. 535, p. 329. 31 p. 329. Statistical Abstract of the United States 1973, loc. cit., No. 535, 264 32Ibid. 33Ben J. Wattenberg and Richard M. Scammon, "Black Progress and Liberal Rhetoric," Commentegy, April, 1973. 34 35Peter M. Blau and Otis Dudley Duncan, The American Oceppational Structure (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1967)'Chapter 6. 36 p. 271. Farley, loc. cit., Table 3A. Manpower Report of the President, 1974, loc. cit., Table A-14, 37QuarterlylEconomic Report on the Black Worker, loc. cit., Table l, p. 5. 38Manpower Report of the President 1974, loc. cit., Table A-22, p. 280. 390parterly§eonomic Report on the Black Worker, Table 1, p. 5. 40The Social and Economic§tatus of the_Black Population in the United States 1974, 10c. cit., Table 32, p. 54. 41 273 Manpower Report of the President 1974, 10c. cit., Table A-16, p. . 42The Socialland Economic Status of the Black ngglation in the United States, loc. cit., Table 39, p. 65. . 43Michael Harrington, The Other America (New York: Macmillan Company, 1963) . 44U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-60, No. 99, "Money Income and Poverty Status of Families and Persons in the United States: 1974" (Wahington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975) Table 15, p. 18. 45Ibid. 46Statistical‘Abstract of the United States 1974, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce (Washington, D.CZ: U.S. Govern- nent Printing Office, 1974) No. 633, p. 390. 47David H. Swinton and Julian Ellison, A re ate Personal Income of the Black Population in the U.S.A. l947-1880 iNew York: Black Economic Research Center, 1973) p. 72. 48Robert S. Browne, "Economics and the Black Community in America," The Review of Black Political Economy, Spring, 1975, p. 311. 49Swinton and Ellison, loc. cit., p. 41-42. 5°Ibid., p. 45. 265 5‘Statistica1 Abstract of the United States 1974, 10c. cit., No. 30, p. 28. 52Affirmative Action and Egual Employment: A Guidebook for Em lo ers, Volume 1, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974). 53The Federal Civil Rights Enforcement Effort - l974, Volumes I-VII (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1975). Gregory J. Ahart, "Evaluating Contract Compliance: Federal Contracts in Nonconstruc- tion Industries," Civil Ri hts Di st, Fall, 1974. Don Bauder, IDS. Housing and Communitleeve opmen ct of 1974: Promise and Performance, Program Services Division, Michigan Department of Civil Rights, 1975} 54Manpower Report of theIPpesident 1974, loc. cit., Table A-12, p. 269. Special Labor Force Report 178, loc. cit., p. 13. 55Randall Weiss, "The Effects of Education on the Earnings of Blacks and Whites,“ Review of Economics and Statistics, May, 1970. 56Bennett Harrison, "Education and Underemployment in the Urban Ghetto," The American Economic Review, December, 1972. 57 p. 304. 58The Social and Economic Status of the Black Population in the United States 1974, loc. cit., Thble 72, p. 107, Table 35, p. 61. Manpower Report of the President 1974, loc. cit., Table B-12, 59Sheila Rowbotham, Women, Resistance, and Revolution (New York: Vintage Books, 1972) Chapter 1. 60Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique (New York: Dell Publishing Company, 1963) Chapter 4. William Henry Chafe, The American Woman: Her Changing Social,lEconomic,land Political Roles, 1920-1970 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1972) "Introduction.“ 61Juliet Mitchell, Woman's Estate (New York: Vintage Books, 1973) Chapter 1. Chafe, loc. citi, Chapter 10. Caroline Bird, Born Female (New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1968) Chapter 9. 62 63 64 65Women Workers Today, Women's Bureau, U.S. Department of Labor, 1974, p. 4. 66The Social and Ec0nomicfi§tatus of the Black Population in the United States 1974, 10c. cit., Tahlei72, p, 107. Manpower Report of the President 1974, 10c. cit., Table A-2, p. 255. Ibid., Table A-4, p. 258. ' Ibid., Table A-1, p. 253. 266 Lynderut lization of Women, Women's Bureau, U. S. Department of Labor, 1971. 68Robert W. Smuts, Women and Work in America (New York: Columbia University Press, 1972) p. vii. 69Gloria Steinem, "If We' re So Smart, Why Aren't We Rich?" Ms. June, 1973, p. 126. 7°Pamela Roby, "Women and American Higher Education," The Annals of the American Academylof Political and Social Science, November, 1972, p 28 71Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1957, 10c. cit., SeFies 072-122, p. 74. (Manpower Report of the President 1974, loc. cit., Table A-ll, p. 268. 72The Social and Economic Status of the Black Population of the United States(1974,*loc. cit., Table 49, p. 74. 730ccupationa1 Characteristics: 1970 Census of Population, PC(2)- 7A, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973) Table 39, p. 593-594. 74Occupational Characteristics: 1960 Census of Population, PC(2)- 7A, Bureau Of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce (Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963) Table 3, p. 21- 22. 75Fact Sheet of the Earnings Gap, Women' 5 Bureau, U. S. Department of Labor, r1971, p. 1. “Money Income and Poverty Status of Families and Persons in the United States: 1974," loc. cit., Table 7, p. 11. 76Far1ey,1oc. cit., p. 17-18. 77Man npower Report: of the President, 1974, loc. cit. , Table A-15, p. 272, Special Labor Force Report 178, loc. cit. , Table 6, p. A-lO. 78 p. 280. Manpower Report of the President 1974, loc. cit., Table A-22, 79Carolyn Shaw Bell, "The Next Revolution," Social Policy, September/ October, 1975. 8OStatistica1 Abstract of the United States 1974. 10c. cit., No. 555. p. 342. Special Labor Force Report 178, loc. cit., Table 7, p. A-lO. 8‘Manpower Report of the President 1974, loc. cit., Table A-22, p. 280. 82 Statistical Abstract of the United States 1974, loc. cit., No. 618. p. 383. 267 83The Social and Economic Status of the Black Popplation in the United States 1974, loc.'Cit., Table 24, p. 43. 84Ibid., Table 16, p. 33. 85Ibid., Table 24. p. 43. 86Eiizabeth Waldman and Robert Whitmore, "Children of Working Mothers, March 1973," Monthly Labor ReView, May, 1974, p. 4, 7. 87Raymond Boudon, Education, Opportunity, and Soejal InerallEy_ (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1974). Louis Emmerij, Can The School Build a New Social Order? (Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, 1974). CHAPTER VIII THE CHALLENGE UPHELD The objective of the foregoing examination has been to assess two predominate competing perspectives of the role of education, the linkages between education and the occupational structure, and the nature of social stratification in the United States. The central tenets of each perspec- tive and the crucial points on which they diverge have been evaluated in this analysis by fOcusing on three specific questions. The evidence which has been brought to bear on the issues represented by these questions, both individually and as a group, provides the basis f0r some closure on these issues and for some broad guidelines regarding future action in these areas. Inteppretation of Major Finding; One of the most firmly ingrained beliefs in the American Weltanschauung_ is that technological change and the ensuing upgrading of job skills have dictated the need for an expanding formal education apparatus. If the validity of this belief is not accepted for its face value, then the correlation between unemployment and low levels of education is offered as final proof. Yet when the technology, job skill, education nexus is placed under closer scrutiny, the conventional wisdom is not sustained. As the findings in Chapter V indicated, almost any line of inquiry into this issue reveals that technological changes cannot account f0r the extent to which education has grown. 268 269 While the nature of jobs has changed over time, in large part because of technology, it can no longer be assumed that the change has been in terms of a universal upgrading of skills required on jobs throughout the occupational structure. About all that can be assumed is the pheno- menon of change itself, sometimes resulting in a downgrading and some- times in an upgrading of skill requirements. Where technological change has resulted in the need to retrain workers, such retraining has usually taken a few weeks or perhaps a few months and it has generally been conducted on the job. Rarely has it been necessary for workers to obtain extended amounts of retraining, in schools or in company training programs. While new jobs requiring high levels of technical skills, and extended years of formal schooling, have been created, this has mistakenly been interpreted as evidence that an increasing percentage of jobs throughout the occupational structure have been similarly effected. Except in the extreme minority of jobs requiring such skills and education, in those cases where some objective measure of performance has been estab- lished and the relationship between performance and education has been examined, no clear-cut pattern has emerged. The fact that older workers have less education than younger workers in every occupational category and that frequently the veterans have less than what is currently required of new entrants, indicate that the function of increasing requirements is more to sort and select among candidates on the basis of their relative educational attainment and to restrict access to jobs rather than to insure that candidates are technically qualified. Despite the increasing amount of time people are staying in school, when it comes to learning job skills formal education is not a major factor, and frequently it is irrelevant. 270 The technological justification fOr the expansion of formal education is further challenged by the attitudes employers express concerning the kinds of characteristics they seek in employees and the contribution of formal education in developing these characteristics, and in the behavior of employers in terms of the kinds of characteristics they reward. As the findings of Chapter VI indicated, since at least the 19405 employers have shown greater concern for the noncognitive rather than the cogni- tive attributes of workers, particularly for the better paid, higher status positions in which the educational requirements are the highest. In addition, many employers openly admit that educational requirements are frequently adjusted to the available supply of workers with a given level of educational attainment, independently of any determination of an absolute amount of education needed to perform the duties called for on the job. Such requirements are often established purely for the pur- pose of limiting the number of candidates who will be considered for certain jobs. Efficiency in the selection process rather than technical capabilities of workers is, therefore, assured by using educational attainment in this manner. In light of these conditions, it is not surprising to find that the expansion of education has not had the democratizing or equalizing effect which the conventional perspective asserts. As indicated in Chapter VII, formal educational attainment has become more equal since World War II among the population in general and between minority and majority groups, but this has not been translated into greater economic equality. The distribution of income has remained intact while wealth has become more concentrated at the top. The economic conditions of minority groups have improved absolutely but little change has occurred in terms of the status 271 of nonwhites or women relative to the dominant groups in American society. If better educated people are rewarded on the basis that they are relatively better educated rather than because such education has tangi- bly contributed to their ability to perform a productive, socially desirable function, and if other lesser educated but technically qualified people receive fewer rewards (i.e. receive lower wages or are unemployed) purely because of their lower relative educational attainment, then that distributive pattern cannot be explained in terms of the proficiencies or deficiencies of individuals. The correlation between one's education and the rewards one receives, such as income, cannot be explained in terms of technical abilities of individuals if education is not rewarded for the technical abilities it imparts. In other words, since technology, education, and inequality are not linked in the manner asserted by the conventional perspective, its meritocratic underpinnings-do not hold up. To understand inequality in American society, therefore, one must focus on the system which generates patterns of differential rewards rather than on the characteristics of individuals who function within that system. The Centrality of Class The principle problem with the conventional perspective in general, and with human capital theory in particular, is a failure to recognize the centrality of class. The basic system defining institutions of capitalism, the private ownership of wealth producing assets (the means of production), the operation of those assets for the profit of the owners, and the ensuing hierarchical division of labor which emerges, are either ignored or treated as unalterable givens, rather than as unique and, in 272 terms of the history of mankind, fairly new sets of social relationships deserving of critical analysis. As indicated earlier, American capitalism is erroneously treated as being synonymous with industrialization rather than as one form of it. Therefore, the inequalities generated by a system in which the surplus wealth is accumulated by those individuals who own the productive resources, the class antagonisms which are inherent in that system and the ideological functions of the hierarchical divi- sion of labor are not considered. Educating peop1e, increasing their pnoductivity, or somehow otherwise altering the characteristics of individuals essentially represent marginal alterations within a larger social, economfic, and political framework. The conception of a free market in which individuals openly compete fOr resources on the basis of their marginal productivity is misleading in and of itself and it ignores the dynamic process of the history of capitalist development along with the influence of that economic development in shaping the social and political fabric of society:I The challenge to the conventional viewpoint, particularly the radical component, recognizes the centrality of class in American society. The primary determinants of the distributive process are more accurately understood, from this viewpoint, as being rooted in the class structure of the United States. The findings of this study cer- tainly make more sense when interpreted within this latter framework. By recognizing that a capitalistic system gives rise to a class struc- ture in which different classes interact in a set of exploitative rela- tionships, and that conflict and inequality are inherent in such a system, then it is clear that some mechanism must be created to provide an ideological justification fOr such relationships in order to maintain 273 the stability of that system. Social control under such conditions, is perpetually problematic. Given this set of circumstances the emphasis employers place on the noncognitive attributes of workers, the use of education credentials as a sorting device to allocate workers among hierarchical (unequal) job opportunities, the lack of a relationship between technological change and education, and the general expansion of education can all be better understood. Formal education, of course, has been a key to substantial upward mobility for many individuals. Differences in the characteristics of individuals like educational attainment, technical skills, personality attributes, etc. may well explain why certain people have obtained access to good jobs and high salaries while others have not. But such differences cannot account for the systemwide perpetuation of inequality. Mobility on the part of some should not be interpreted as a change in the distributive process itself or the distributive patterns which emerge. And as Bottomore has cogently argued, a circulation of elites or a compe- tition of so-called representative elites cannot be equated with demo- cracy.2 A society can be charaCterized by both high rates of social mobility and a clearly defined Class structure. Indeed such mobility is one factor which sustains that structure. From this perspective, it is conceivable that racism and sexism could be eliminated while the basic structure of the class system remains intact. Formal education is not exogenous to the larger society in the United States. Educators may be among the most sensitive, concerned, well intentioned people. But despite the intentions of those involved in the American educational enterprise, its effect has been largely to reinforce the economic, political, and social structure of society in- cluding the inequality inherent in our society. 274 Policy Implications The fourth question to be examined in this study has, in large part, already been answered. That question is: In light of the answers to the first three questions, to what extent can educational reform contri- bute to the creation of greater economic equality in the future? Again, the objective of this study is not to assess the merits or demerits of equality or inequality. One of the objectives is, however, to evaluate the effectiveness of certain strategies in creating greater economic equality. As indicated immediately above, strategies aimed at altering the characteristics of individuals within society are marginalist appro- aches to consequences or manifestations of processes and patterns which are rooted more deeply in the structural or institutional framework of society. Attempts to alter processes and patterns, which class struc- tural factors dictate, by educating or somehow otherwise changing the characteristics of the individuals subject to these larger forces are not likely to succeed. The Failure of Equality of Opportunity One reason why education has been viewed as a key to achieving greater economic equality is the belief that through education people can be provided the training necessary to develop their abilities in order to be able to compete in a free market which rewards people on the basis of objective criteria of merit rather than on the basis of ascribed characteristics. Education, in other words, is the key to the notion of equality of opportunity. By creating equality of opportunity, it is believed that greater economic equality will result because modern industrialized societies reward people on the basis of what they can do rather than on the basis of who they are. What advocates of equal 275 opportunity fail to recognize is that inequality is rooted in the class or occupational structure itself, and that there are important subjec- tive dimensions imbedded within the social relations of production which influence the distribution of rewards. The concept of equal opportunity also presupposes the existence or inequality. As long as inequality exists, the more privileged members of society will be able to provide greater opportunities to their offspring because_of the skills,resources, contacts, etc. they have access to as individuals and as part of the upper class. In other words, it is difficult to conceive of equal oppor- tunity becoming a reality in an unequal society. And even if some method could be devised for giving all people equal opportunity in a highly stratified society, like the United States, such equal opportunity to compete for uneqUal rewards would at best randomize inequality. In and of itself equal opportunity cannot be translated into equal results. As indicated above, individual characteristics may well explain why some people rather than others are rich or poor. But they cannot explain why a system generates a constant distributive pattern year in and year out. The constancy of the income distribution in the United States since World War II can only be understood in systemic, not in .individualistic terms. Providing low income people with more education might raise their position in the labor queue relative to others, but it hdll not alter the larger distributive pattern. As indicated in the previous chapters, what generally has happened when lesser educated, low income people receive more education, is that the educational level of the population in general rises, leaving them in the same relative position. While the educational floor has been rising faster than the educational ceiling, and educational attainment has become more 276 equal, such expansion and equalization havenot been translated into greater economic equality. The strategy of equalizing opportunities, the heart of the liberal reform policy of the 19605, failed to generate greater equality, there- fore, because the assumptions on which it was built were incorrect. Such strategies are no more likely to succeed in the future. For example, as Farley pointed out, even if the incomes of black families were to improve relative to whites at the rate they were progressing in the 19605, it would not be until the year 2000 that equality would be achieved. And since the growth rate of the 19605 has not carried over into the 1970s, it will take even 1onger.3 15 Greater Equality Possible? In order to create greater economic equality, attention must be focused on the class structure itself, particularly the hierarchical division of labor which constitutes an important ideological support mechanism for that structure. Inequality must be dealt with by direct intervention into the differential rewards which accrue to various positions within the occupational structure and into the econdmic system which generates the distributive patterns. In recent years it has not been just the radical critics of capitalism who have argued that attempts to equalize education or to create equal opportunity by some other means must be augmented by more direct attacks on the 4 Equalizing educational opportunities structural roots of inequality. is a desirable policy objective but it is an inadequate approach to creating greater economic equality. For decades the prosperity of the United States, and the optimism 277 for improving the lives of all classes and for creating greater equality have been based on the expansion and the expectations of future expan- sion of the economy.5 Yet that expansion has not been accompanied by an equalization of the rewards available in American society,_again because expansion alone does not alter the structural determinants of inequality.6 If such an equalization is to occur, it appears that redistribution of the existing pie rather than an expansion of the total pie in hopes that greater equality will somehow follow, must occur. Essentially this means reallocating the wealth which private individuals accumulate as a result of their ownership of productive resources. This could be done through some genuinely progressive income tax, by‘ redis- tributing (socializing) ownership of wealth producing assets, or simply by direct confiscation. The issue of equalization, in other words, is not tactical but political. There are ways to create greater economic equality. The problem is that none are politically feasible at the moment, particularly for those who own the largest share of resources. Socialism, at least as an idea and occasionally in actual practice, is one alternative to the present system which has long been proposed. But there are strong barriers to the establishment of socialism in the United States. In addition to the power of those who have an economic interest in perpetuating existing relationships, there is strong opposi- tion from other segments of society. Tampering with the market mechanism is still perceived as a threat to cherished individual freedoms by many‘ Americans from all walks of life, even though the free market of laissez- faire capitalism disappeared long ago and such freedom often means the right of some individuals to exploit others. Many people fear there will be no motivation to produce and the economy will stagnate if people cannot .278 accumulate private wealth and capitalize personally on risks which pay off, even though over time the proportion of workers who accumulate vast fortunes from such ventures has diminished while more people have become wage laborers or salaried employees. If we are to have a planned economic system, questions are raised concerning who is to do the planning, and who will plan the planners. And it is frequently pointed out that there is inequality in socialist countries. In other words, there is much ideological support for our present system and reaction against anything which smacks of socialism or threatens the status quo in any way. These objections are not totally without merit, but they serve more to perpetuate prevailing inequalities than as valid reasons for not con- sidering alternatives. Worker control experiments such as the ones at GAF Corporation in Lowell, Vermont7 and at Harmon International Industries, 8 suggest that work can be more productively Inc., in Bolivar, Tennessee, and more efficiently performed and that worker motivation can be improved when work is organized democratically rather than in the traditional bureaucratic hierarchy. As more successful experiments like these occur, socialism may, in the long run, develop a wide enough appeal to threaten the prevailing system. Given the logic of capitalist development, the natural tendency towards monopoly or oligopoly, and the accumulation of wealth in the hands of fewer private individuals, economic expansion is not likely to result in greater equality either in the short or long run.9 The kinds of structural change required in order to redistribute wealth are not likely to occur,-at least in the near future. It is to be hoped that a politically feasible strategy resulting in meaningful progress towards equality will emerge. A stronger commitment, in terms of money, manpower, 279 or good-will, to the marginalist kinds of strategies of the 19605 can no longer, however, be considered a solution. Research Implications The role of education in the United States, racial discrimination, inequality and the interrelationships of these phenomena have been the subject of volumes of research and they undoubtedly will be for years to come. The findings of this study suggest some lines of inquiry which would be productive in terms of :sheding further light on the issues which have been discussed above, issues which represent some of the most challenging and longstanding problems confronting American society. The Expansion of Formal Education First, however, there are certain dimensions to the expansion of formal education not examined in this study which should be investigated. Unionization on the part of education employees is one factor which has contributed to an expansion of educational expenditures in recent years that cannot be explained by rising enrollments or any other apparent change in the educational functions of schools. Between the 1957-58 and 1971-72 school years, outlays for public elementary and secondary education more than tripled, from $13.6 billion to $46.8 billion. A recent Brookings Institution study estimated that only one-fourth of that increase could be attributed to rising enroi1ments.‘° The bulk of that increase went to pay rising personnel costs. In Detroit, for example, 89 percent of the increase in educational expenditures between the l966-67 and 1970-71 school years went for salaries and fringe benefits. The increasing salaries of instructional employees contributed the most 280 11 to rising expenditures. During those years the school budget of the city of Chicago doubled and the administrative costs tripled while 12 As the fiscal crisis worsens enrollment increased by two percent. and as more educators organize, the shape of education in the future will become more and more dependent on the outcomes of these labor-management confrontations. Educational institutions, like most other bureaucracies. tend to create new needs for their services when the demand for those services they were created to provide lessens. The growing emphasis on adult or life-long education on the part of colleges and universities does not just happen to coincide with declining enrollments of college age stu- dents. As Fred Hechinger stated, "In the United States, the most obvious reason for the sharp turn to adults as tomorrow's students is the pro- 13 spect of declining college enrollments." Not only have educational institutions turned to more intensive recruiting and advertising, but educational advertising has become a more prominent specialty within the advertising business. A sign of the times is an advertisement in a recent issue of The Chronical of Higher Education which read as follows: Up Your Enrollments! Imaginative, sharply-focused adver- tising can do it. ‘ Your educational institution, like so many these days, probably has limited funds for enrollment advertising and promotion--just when you need them most. That's why you should be more accurate, more demanding with every advertising dollar you spend. Where can you start? With your advertising agency. LJR is an advertising agency with strong experience in the student market.’ As specialists in education advertising, we have the know-how to meet your enrollment needs. . .no matter how big the problem. . .or how small the budget.14 281 If it has not been clear in the past, it is obvious now that educational institutions are much like any other business in that those who are dependent on such organizations for a living are constantly seeking to perpetuate and if possible increase the demand for their services. In addition, there is a continuous struggle between the employers and the employees. These factors cannot be ignored if we are to develop a more complete understanding of the past, present, and future shape of American education. Technology, Job Skills and Education Much also remains to be learned about the relationships among technological change, job skill requirements, employers' educational requirements and educational attainment. Case studies of specific work settings provide valuable information on the organizations under examination. Bright's studies of the effect of technological change on job skills in thirteen of the most modern automated plants in the mid 19505 allow for somewhat broader generalizations. But what would be particularly infOrmative is a nationwide cross-sectional investigation, conducted perhaps under the auspices of the Department of Labor. Such a study would provide the basis for more precise conclusions regarding the effect of technological change on job skills. Differences within and among different industries, Occupations, and regions should be explored by examining representative samples of the labor force. Mueller's survey represents one attempt to draw some conclusions which are generalizable to the national work force. As indicated in Chapter V, however, Mueller's findings that better educated workers were more likely to be using more sophisticated equipment and that workers expressed 282 a felt need for further education merely beg the questions she claimed she was trying to answer. What is needed is a more thorough and direct investigation of how technology has effected job skills and of how em- ployers' educational requirements have changed in relationship to the changes in job skills. It has been more than twelve years since.the Department of Labor surveyed a representative sample of the nation's work force regarding the ways workers learned their current jobs. A replication of formal Occopational Training of Adult Workers would indicate what kinds of changes, if any, have occurred in terms of how workers have learned the skills they use on the job. This kind of a study would be parti- cularly informative if workers with three or more years of college were asked the same questions as those with less schooling. The schedule used to survey these better educated workers in 1963 again served to beg important questions about the linkages between technology, job skills, and formal education. A broader investigation of employers' selection practices would be informative in terms of the relationship between technology and education and in terms of other factors which enter into this decision- making process. Access to the inner circles of private industry policy makers is difficult to obtain. But an expanded version of my examina- tion of selected occupations in six firms is feasible. If nothing more than the age and educational attainment of workers within specific occupations could be obtained from a broader sample of organizations, this would provide greater insight into the selection practices. 283 Equality . Legitimizing inequality has long been problematic, in the United States and elsewhere. Educational credentials have provided employers with a convenient mechanism for allocating workers to various slots within their organizational hierarchy. The allocation of rewards on the basis of educational attainment has generally been recognized as a legitimate way of carrying out this stratifying function. But in recent years this mode of operation has been challenged, and there is evidence that it will become a more critical point of contention in the future. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the guidelines under which it has been implemented, and several court cases such as the gejgg§.deci- sion have made it much more difficult for employers to use education in their selection practices. The challenge to industry now, and an issue which should be the subject of future research, is how the strati- fying function will be carried out and the basis on which it will be legitimized. If the legitimization of distinctions based on race, sex, age, and education is weakened, along with informal methods of job recruitment, one hypothesis would be that the class conflicts in society would intensify. Further economic growth might temporarily quell any disruption but it is becoming apparent that the United States must find some alternative solution to its domestic problems. Whether or not a solution can be found within the framework of a capitalist society is a question which is more frequently raised. If unemployment rates and the cost of living should continue to rise, or if they should not be significantly abated, the potential for conflict would increase and the consequences of heightened conflict could be most severe. Another, perhaps more likely, possibility is that as the economy 284 continues to decline or fails to expand adequately and as the tradi- tional sources of authority and legitimacy break down, conflict will intensify but primarily along racial lines. Busing and affirmative action are two tactics which are aimed essentially at redistributing scarce resources between whites and nonwhites. Both are issues which have already generated much ill will and, in the case of busing, occa- sional violence. While racism certainly would not disappear if economic class distinctions could somehow be eliminated, future research into race relations should take into consideration the larger class structure, which currently does exist, and in which racial conffiict is rooted. The current attack on credentialism represents one dimension of the erosion of formal education's authority. The truancy rates and the crime rates within schools, particularly inner city schools, suggest that for at least some students schools are not inculcating cognitive or non- cognitive attributes. While the number of such students at the present time could be considered inconsequential in terms of society in general, the increasing problem of discipline within the schools indicates that this is another pehnomenon, or perhaps a manifestation of a larger pro- blem, which could have serious consequences in the near future. One could argue that this is a problem which is unique to a certain set of individuals, albeit a growing number, and that the solution is to find out what is wrong with these people and cure it. If this cannot be done then perhaps they should be isolated from society for the protec- tion of the rest of us. But perhaps these individuals are just re- sponding rationally to their life situation. If schools are not pro- viding them with an adequate education, or if for them there is little likelihood that an education will pay off, the problem again might be 285 systemic rather than individualistic. For whatever reason, at least some schools have lost their authority in the minds of some people. Further research on these problems would be more productive if they are viewed from a systemic rather than an individualistic perspective. The declining authority of education in some circles points up the fact that there are contradictory forces which shape education and American society in general. while education has expanded in large part because of the legitimization function it has performed, that expansion has also raised expectations for many people which have gone unfulfilled. It has also generated a critical re-examination of the role of schooling and the dynamics of American society. The sources of these contradictions must be examined if we are to fully under- stand how our society got where it is today, and where it may lead to in the future. Another issue which should be investigated in the near future is the impact of affirmative action programs and other attempts to create equal opportunities for minorities. As indicated in the pre- vious chapter, the evaluations which have so far been conducted indicate that the civil rights enforcement effort has been less than comprehen- sive. Only a small percentage of eligible contractors are reviewed and frequently affirmative action plans are approved which do not meet 15 Sanctions are rarely enforced, more because federal regulations. enforcement officials either are not familiar with the guidelines they are supposed to enforce or because they rely on attempts to informally negotiate a settlement rather than because contractors are generally in compliance.16 Instances where compliance officials have provided confidential assurances that civil rights regulations will not be 286 enforced have been uncovered.17 At least two federal agencies have been taken to court for failure to enforce civil rights regulations which they have been legally empowered to enforce.18 In its recent assessment of the federal government's effbrts to enforce the nondiscrimination clauses of federal contracts the General Accounting Office found a pattern of "almost nonexistence of enforcement actions” which could lead contractors to believe "that the compliance agencies do not intend to enfbrce" those regulations.19 Despite these difficulties some com- panies have lost huge sums of money for civil rights violations. For example, American Telephone and Telegraph has paid over $l7 million in back pay awards and penalties and an additional $50 million in yearly payments for promotion and wage adjustments to minority and female employees.20 Undoubtedly some employers have altered their practices without having been forced to by government agencies in order to avoid expensive litigation. Hhat is lacking is a comprehensive evaluation of the effects of these efforts on the economic status of minorities. In a conversation with one official of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission I was informed that no evaluation of affirmative action plans had been conducted by that agency. It would be infbrma- tive to examine changes which have occurred within specific organiza- tions that have adopted affirmative action plans. Questions such as how effectively have goals been met, how many additional minorities and women have been hired and promoted, and how high within the organ- izational hierarchy have they reached, should be answered. Of even greater importance is how many minorities and women have been affected by these programs. In other words, how has the economic status of these groups changed as a result of affirmative action? Holkinson _ 237 concluded in his analysis of seventy-five conciliation cases involving labor union discrimination that the EEOC has compiled a poor record and has achieved only limited success in eliminating discrimination.21 In fact, Holkinson subtitled his book, A Study of Administrative Futility. The income data reported in the previous chapter suggest that Holkinson's findings would be reinforced by further investigation into the concrete effects of affirmative action and other civil rights activity on the lives of protected groups. One of the perhaps unintended consequences of affirmative action has been the charge of reverse discrimination made by many whites, particularly during the current recession when many people are losing jobs and other jobs are harder to find. Some whites maintain that as a result of affirmative action they are losing jobs to minorities which they should rightfully have. As indicated above, such occurrences may generate increasing racial hostility in the future. whether or not affirmative action in fact denies whites jobs, is a divide and conquer technique orchestrated by the ruling class, or is an effective strategy fer eliminating discrimination are all general issues which should be explored in the future. Another approach to the study of equality which should be under- taken is an investigation of socialist countries that have taken more direct action to achieve greater equality. Cuba and the People's Republic of China in particular have undergone vast transfonmations in recent years. Undoubtedly much could be learned about the organization of work and the delivery of such services as medical care and education. While the socialist models that have been adopted in other countries might not be transferable, in total, to the United States, certain 288 dimensions of them could conceivably be productively implemented. Some private individuals stand to lose by any significant reorganization of American society and it is difficult to determine the extent to which social change would be rejected on political or on other grounds. But as the worker control experiments mentioned earlier suggest, at least some of the ideological justifications for the status quo have been called into question. The lines of inquiry suggested here do not constitute a systematic research program that would comprehensively resolve these issues. Some of these proposals constitute straightfbrward and quite specific re- search projects while others are merely recommendations for general areas to be explored. The major point of these suggestions and the principle implication of this study for future research is that the fbcus of attention should be on dynamic structural or systemic determinants of social phenomena rather than on the characteristics of individuals. Instead of calculating rates of return to education or correlation coefficients between education and unemployment or socio-economic background and education, income, occupation, etc., which serve more to beg vital questions than to answer them, the focus of future research should be on the historical development of institu- tions and social relationships which evolve, the technical as well as the social forces which dictate change, and the sources of dissensus as well as consensus which are rooted in the structural framework of American society. 289 The Role of Education: Technical Training;or Social Contr017‘—‘ At the end of the first chapter I stated that perhaps the most important question this study would examine is essentially whether the thrust of schooling has been technical or ideological. That is, have schools functioned more to contribute to the welfare of American society and the individuals living in it, or to legitimize an exploi- tative status quo. I also indicated that proponents of the conventional and class perspectives acknowledge there is some truth to both sides of this debate. While the dichotomy posed in this study does suppress some commonalities among all observers and some differences within each camp, what I have labelled as the conventional and class perspectives do represent two reasonably distinct views of the role of education, the linkages between education and the occupational structure, and the nature of social stratification in the United States. The findings of this study strongly support the latter framework as representing a more accurate interpretation of these issues. This investigation has shown that the conventional perspective cannot account for many longstanding facts about American society. Not surprisingly the traditional liberal refbrms which evolved from this perspective have failed to solve our most serious social problems, despite huge investments of both money and well intentioned manpower. To view class distinctions as central characteristics in American society and class conflict as the principle force which propels poli- tical, economic, and social change, and to interpret educational and other institutions as superstructural factors which serve to legitimize the social relations of production and the inequality which rises out 290 of those relations, constitutes a far different portrayal of the United States than is generally accepted. But until this basic picture is accepted along with the policy implications which logically flow from it, attempts to deal with the major problems of our society are not likely to meet with much success. REFERENCES 1Douglas F. Dowd, The Twisted Dream: Capitalist Development in the United States Since 1776 (Cambridge: TWinthrop Publishers, Inc., l973}, Chapter One. RiChard C. Edwards and Arthur MacEwan, "A Radical Approach to Economics,“ in David M. Gordon (Ed.), Problems in Political Eggngmy: An Urban Perspective (Lexington: D.C. Heath and Company, 2T. B. Bottomore, Elites and Society(Baltimore: Penguin Books. Inc., l964), Chapters VI andfiVII. 3Reynolds Farley, “The Economic Status of Blacks: Have the Gains of the l960s Disappeared in the l970s?" Paper presented to the 70th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, San Francisco, August, l975, p. 21. 4Raymond Boudon, Education 0 ortunity, and Social Inequality (John Wiley and Sons, Inc., l§71’. Eouis Emmerij, Can‘the School guild a New Social Order? (Elsevier ScientiszPublishing Company, l974). Christopher Jencks, et al., Inequality: A Reassessment of the Effects of Family_and Schooling_in America (Harper and’Row‘PUbliShers, 1973). 5Frederick Jackson Turner, The Frontier in American History (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1920). 6Dowd, loc. cit. William Appleman Williams, The Contogrs_of American History (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1966). 7Maryanne Conhein, "Workers Save Jobs, Town by Buying Out Their Mine,” Detroit Free Press, May ll, 1975. 8Agis Salpukas, ”Plant is Experimenting with Changing Work on Line,” New York Times, April 9, 1975. "How Workers Can Get Eight Hours Pay fer Five," Business Week, May 19, l975. 9 Paul M. Sweezy, The Theor of Ca italist Development (New York: Monthly Review Press, l9685. 10Robert D. Reischauer and Robert W. Hartman, Refbrmin School Finance (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, T§7§lf' ted in Richard C. Hill, "The Fiscal Crisis of the State: A Case Study of Education in Detroit," Paper presented to the Eighth World Congress of » Sociology,Toronto.l974. 291 292 ll 12Karen Hasman, "Nonteaching School Jobs Eat Up Budget," Chicago Daily News, January 24, l972. Hill, loc. cit., p. 22. 13Fred Hechinger, "Education's 'New Majority,'" Saturday Review, September 20, 1975, p. 15. ”The Chronical of Higher Education, September l5, 1975, p. 11. 15Gregory J. Ahart, "Evaluating Contract Compliance: Federal Contracts in Nonconstruction Industries,“ Civil Rights Di est, Fall, 1974. Don Bauder, The Hogsingand Community Development ct of 1974: Promise and Performance, Program Services Division, Michigan Depart- ment of CiviT‘Rights,’1975. The Federal Civil Rights Enfbrcement Effort-l974, Volunes I-VII (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Conlnission on Civil Rights, l975). 16Ahart, loc. cit. The Federal CivilRights EnfbrcementgffOrt- l974. Volumes I-VII, loc. cit. ° 17 18In the case of Adams v. Richardson, The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was sued for failing to enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of l964. See, The federal Civil Rights Enfbrce- ment Effort-1974: Volume III To Ensure Equal Educational Opportunit (Washington,'D.Cf: ’U.S. Commission on CiVil Rights, T975), p. - 4. In the case of the Legal Aid Society of Alameda County v. grennan, The U.S. Department of Agriculture was sued for failing to enforce Executive Order ll246. See, Review and Analysis of the Alameda County Decisjgg, Human Designs Division, Information SCience Incorporated, 93 Chestnut Ridge Road, Montvale, New Jersey, August, l974. In both cases the court found in favor of the plaintiff and ordered the respective federal agencies to take specific enfbrcement actions. Bauder, loc. cit. 19"GAO Charges Weak Anti-Bias Effort," Monthly_tabor Review. July, l975, p. 58. 20Affirmative Action and Equal Employment: A Guidebook for E lo ers VOlume I (Washington, D.C.: U.S. EqualEEmployment Oppor- tunity Comission, l974), p. lO. "AT & T Backpay Award Increase," Mbnthly Labor Review. July, l975, p. 59. ZlBenjamin Wolkinson, glacks,Unions, and the EEOC: A Stu of Administrative Futility (Lexington: Lexington 80053, 19735. APPENDICES APPENDIX A THE MEANING OF THE GED SCORE OF JOBS PROVIDED IN ESTIMATES OF WORKEByTRAIT REQUIREMENTS FOR 4,000 JOBS APPENDIX A THE MEANING OF THE GED SCORE OF JOBS PROVIDED IN ESTIMATES OF WORKER TRAIT REQUIREMENTS FOR 41900 JOBS In Estimates of Worker Trait Requirements for 4,000 Jobs each job is rated according to the general educational development (GED), speci- fic vocational preparation, twelve different temperaments, ten different interests, six physical capacities, and seven working conditions which relate to the job. This study, and most others which use Estimates, fbcus on the GED scores in analyzing the educational requirements of jobs. General educational development was defined as: . .those aspects of education which contribute to the worker's (a) reasoning development, adaptability to the social environment, and ability to follow instructions, (b) acquisition of 'tool' knowledges such as language and mathematical skills. It is education of a general academic nature ordinarily obtained in elementary school, high school, or college which does not have a recognized, fairly specific occupational objective. It may derive also from experience and self-study. (Page llO) Three kinds of abilities; reasoning, mathematics, and language, were evaluated according to a seven point scale in determining the GED score. (In the 1966 revision of Estimates, entitled Selected Character- istics of Occupations, the seven point scale was collapsed into a six point scale.) The GED score assigned to each job was the highest of the three scores which were given to the job for each of the specific abilities. The seven levels were described as follows: 293 hvei Main. Development 294 Mathematical Development Iago-gem Apply principlce cl logical or scientific think- wide range of intellectual and prac- tical problema. Deal with nonverbal ayw boliam (formulae. acientiflc equations. graphs, musical notea. etc.) in ite moat dif- ficult phaaa. Deal with a variety ol ab- Work with a wide variety cl theoretical tieal con- cept! and make original appli. cationa of mathematical pro- cedurea, ea in empirical and dilierentlal equation. Comprehenaion and expr-ion d preciaa or yvconnciatie amnion. ea in In—Journal of Educational Sociology. —8cientidc Monthly. Itract and concrete variablea. Apprehend —Literary worha, each an Stain, Elliot. the moat abctruae clan-ea of co Auden. 6 Apply principles of logical or aeientiiie think- Make atandard application: of Cornpreheneion and expraaaion OI in; to define problem, collect data, ectab- ' ecu, and draw valid ooncluaiona. In- terpret an extenaive variety of technical inatruetiona, in booka. manuala, mathemat- ical, or diagrammatic form. Deal with aeveral abstract and concrete variablu. Apply principles of rational ayaterna ' to aolve practical problems. Interpret a variety of advanced mathematlea, aa diflerantlel and Integral cal- Pcriorm ordinary arithmetic algebraic, and geometric pro- -—Saturday Review of “mature, Harp- er' a. —8cientlfle American. ——Invitation to learning (radio program). Compreheneionandupte-ionaaci Science. —Popular inetructlona iurniahed in written. oral, dia- cedurea in etandard, practical -Ameriea'a Town Meeting (1 the Air grammatic, or schedule form. Deal with applications. (radio program). a variety oi concrete variablee. 4 Apply common eenae undentanding to carry Make arithmetic calculation: in— Compreheneion and expansion an of out lnatructiona iurniahed In written, oral, volving iractiona, decimal-and ——Readerl’ Dim rdiagrammatic form. Deal with prob- percentages. —Amarican M ‘9 .. lema involving aeveral concrete variables. Apply common aenae nod out detailed but uninvolved written or oral instructions. Deal with problem involv- ing a few concrete variablee. Apply common sense underetandlng to carry out epokcn or written onr or two-etep in- atructiona. Deal with atandardiaed ritua- tiona with only one or two, very oocnaional, variablee entering. Apply common aenae undcntanding to carry out very aimple lnatructiona given orally or by demonstration. No variablu cratanding to carry ‘ the arithmetic to add, aubtract. multiply, and divide whole num Perform aimple adding and cub- ctr-acting. Nona ........................ — aoap operaa '. Compreheoaicn and upmioo of a level to —8ign name and underetand what in being aigncd. —ll.ead aimpie materials, each as lute. addrenea and aalety warning. —Keep very simple production M No epcakiag, reading, or writing required. omd'wumdww'm:mmhwmmmmmmm Mninmsahipaafliu. provided in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (99:) were used by job analysts as the basis for their ratings. The task statements For example, according to the DOT Volume I the job of Carpenter, Fore- man was described in the following manner: Supervises and coordinates activities of workers engaged in construction, installation, and repair of wooden struc- tures and fixtures. Examines blueprints to determine dimensions of structure. Lays out floor plan and cabinet work, using rule, framing square, and calipers. Selects materials, such as lumber, prefabricated doors and cabinets of wood or plastic, and paneling, and inspects them to insure conformance with provisions of building code and local ordinances. Determines sequence of activities con- cerned with fabrication, assembly, and erection of struc- ture. Assigns workers to such tasks as cutting material to size, building concrete forms, erecting wooden framework. 295 and laying flooring. Inspects work performed by subcon- tractors, including ductwork, wiring, and pipe installa- tions, to insure confbrmance with specifications. Installs doors, builds stairs, and lays hardwood floors. May supervise workers engaged in building timber structures, such as cofferdams, trestles, and supports for concrete fOrms. May make cost estimates for contracts. Performs other duties as described under FOREMAN. May be designated according to area of specialization as COFFERDAM—CONSTRUCTION FOREMAN; FORM-BUILDING FOREMAN; TIMBERING FOREMAN. (Page 101) I a From this information the GED score of 5 was assigned to this job. Neither Estimates nor the DOT delineates the specific criteria used to determine a rating from the job description. According to Estimates, analysts were given over 100 hours of training in job analysis and classification. Several analysts were used to rate each job in an attempt to maximize the validity of the ratings. For a more complete description of how these data were compiled see pages iv-ix and ll0-158 of Estimates. APPENDIX B SELECTED INDUSTRIES. OCCUPATIONS, AND NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN EACH OCCUPATION IN SIX PRIVATE CORPORATIONS APPENDIX B SELECTED INDUSTRIES, OCCUPATIONS. AND NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN EACH OCCUPATION IN SIX PRIVATE CORPORATIONS The companies from which the data were obtained include; (1) a retail clothing chain, (2) a beer manufacturer. (3) a meat processor, (4) a pharmaceutical drug manufacturer, (5) a communications equipment manufacturer, and (6) an,office machine manufacturer. The positions within each company and the number of employees within these positions are: retail clothing chain assistant manager (52) beer manufacturer design engineer (25) chemist (44) meat processor credit representative (12) food service representative (74) food service district sales manager I (20) relief sales representative (23) retail sales representative (103) sales representative (46) account representative (81) account supervisor (43) district sales manager I (23) production supervisor (37) production fbreman/forelady III (114) production foreman/forelady II (140) livestock station manager 11 (12) livestock station mana er I (19) livestock buyer II (50 area supervisor-industrial engineer (16) industrial engineer II (43) product control supervisor II (12) distribution center manager 11 (19) sales manager I (15) technician I (13) 296 297 design engineer II (12) industrial nurse II (18) assistant production scheduler (11) sanitation foreman/forelady (27) $06 inspector (132) laboratory technician (30) product control technician (28) product control technologist (34) pharmaceutical drug manufacturer (agricultural division) district sales manager (31) sales representative IV (23) sales representative III (54) sales representative I (53) sales representative II (51) communications equipment manufacturer engineer (16) staff engineer (13) office machine manufacturer sales representative (copier/duplicator) (1112) Some data were-obtained on employees within other occupations but fOr the purposes of this study, only those positions in which information was provided for ten or more employees were included. This was done partly as a matter of convenience and partly because comparison among so few cases does not provide much useful infbrmation. The retail clothing chain is a regional business concern while the remaining firms operate on a nationwide basis. The company headquarters are located in the following states: retail clothing chain - Michigan beer manufacturer - Missouri meat processOn - Wisconsin pharmaceutical drug manufacturer (agricultural division) North Carolina communications equipment manufacturer Illinois office machine manufacturer - New York APPENDIX C EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT BY AGE, INDUSTRY. AND OCCUPATION IN FIVE PRIVATE CORPORATIONS APPENDIX C EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT BY AGE, INDUSTRY,~ AND OCCUPATION IN FIVE PRIVATE CORPORATIONS No. of enployees No. of euployees Difference in % under 35 and %»of 35 or older and of younger a older them with % of them with workers with Company and Eositjon Bachelor's Degrees Bachelor's Degrees bachelor's Degrees lbtail Clothing Store assistant manager 27 (48.1%) 25 (0%) 48.1 Beer Manufacturer 1 design engineer 11 90.9%) 14 (57.1%) 33,3 chemist 24 95.8%) 20 (90.0%) 5.8 Meat Processor credit representative 5 280.0% 7 (42.3%) 37.2 food service representative 57 95-5% 17 (11.8%) 84.7 food service district sales manager I 18 (100.0%) 2 (0%) 100.0 relief sales representative 2 19 100.0% 4 25.0% 75.0 retail sales representative 55 292.7% 48 14.6% 78.1 sales representative 24- 87.5%) 22 22.7% 64.8 account representative 49 83.7% 32 21.9%) 61.8 account supervisor 10 90.0% 33 15.1%) 74.9 district sales manager I 19 94.7% 4 25.0%) 69.7 production supervisor 10 (70.0%) 27 (29.6%) 40.4 production f0reman/ forelady III 52 553.8%) 62 (11.5%) 42.3 production foreman/fOrelady II 75 66.7% 65 (7.7%) 59.0 livestock station manager 11 6 100.0% 6 (0% 100.0 livestock station manager I 10 100.0%) 9 0% 100.0 livestock buyer II 28 (71.4%) 22 (4.5%) 66.9 area supervisor-industrial engineer 12 91.7%; 4 250.0%) 41.7 industria1 engineer II 36 88.9% 7 57.1% 31.8 product control superviosr II 6 (100.0%; 6 (100.0% 0 distribution center manager II 8 (87.5% 11 (63.6%) 23.9 sales manager I 2 (100.0%) 13 46.2%) 53.8 technician I 8 (37.5%) 5 40.0%) -2.5 design engineer II 0 12 58.3%) -- industrial nurse II 4 50.0% 14 35.7% 14.3 assistant production scheduler 6 50.0% 5 20.0% 30.0 sanitation f0reman/forelady 15 73.3% 12 (8.3% 65.0 SOC inSpector 99 19.2% 33 i 15.6%) 3.6 laboratory technician 26 26.9% 12 16.7% 10.2 product control technician 24 33.3%) 4 25.0% 8.3 product control technologist 29 (93.1%) 5 (80.0%) 13.1 Pharmaceutical Drug Manufacturer district sales manager 12 (100.0% 19 (100.0%) 0 sales representative IV 11 90.9% 12 (91.7%) -.8 sales representative III 33 97.0% 21 (95.2%) 1.8 sales representative I 53 88.7%; 0 - sales representative II 41 97.6% 10 (90.0%) 7.6 Communications Equipment Manufacturer engineer 9 (33.3% 71 (0%) 33.3 staff engineer 4 75.0% 9 (22.2%) 52.8 2983 I‘ll. I I ti .|.I1. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY I. Articles Abrams, Elliott. "The Quota Commission," Commentary. (October 1972). Ahart, Gregory J. "Evaluating Contract Compliance: Federal Contracts in Nonconstruction Industries," Civil Rights Digest. (Fall 1974). Bell, Daniel. "0n Meritocracy and Equality," Public Interest. (Fall 1972). Bell, Carolyn Shaw. ”The Next Revolution," Social Policy. (September/ October 1975). Bezdek, Roger H. and Getzel, Barry. "Education and Training of Scientists and Engineers," MonthLygLabor Review. (November 1973). Bowles, Samuel and Gintis, Herbert. "1.0. and the U.S. Class Structure,“ Social Policy (November/December 1972 and January/February 1973). . Bowles, Samuel, Gintis, Herbert, and Meyer, Peter. "The Long Shadow of Work: Education, The Family, and the Reproduction of the Socigl Division of Labor," The Insurgent Sociologist. (Sumner 1975 . Brenner, Marshall H. "Use of High School Data to Predict Work Perfor- mance," Journal of Applied Psychology,(l968). Bright, James R. "Does Automation Raise Skill Requirements?" Harvard Business Review.(1958). Browne, Robert S. "Economics and the Black Community in America," The Review of Black Political Economy. (Spring 1975). Clark, Burton R. "The 'Cooling Out' Function in Higher Education," American Journal of Sociology, (May 1960). Collins, Randall. ”Functional and Conflict Theories of Educational Stratification," American Sociolgical Review. (December 1971). . "Hhere are Educational Requirements fOr Employment Highest," Sociology of Education (Fall 1974). Conhein, Maryanne. ”Workers Save Jobs, Town By Buying Out Their Mine," Detroit Free Press (May 11, 1975). 299 300 Crane, Diane. "Social Class Origin and Academic Success: The Influ- ence of the Stratification Systems on Academic CareersJ'Sociology of Education (1969). Davis, Kingsley and Moore, Wilbert. "Some Principles of Stratification," American Sociological Review (April 1945). Drake, Larry R., Kaplan, H. Roy, and Stone, Russell A. "How Do Employers Value the Interview?" ‘Journal of College Placement (February-March 1972). Eash, M. J. "Groupin : What Have We Learned?“ Educational Leader— ShiQ (April 1961?. - Eckaus, R. S. ”Economic Criteria for Education and Training," Review of Economics and Statistics (1964). Eckland, Bruce K. "Academic Ability, Higher Education, and Occupational Mobility," American Sociological Review (October 1965). Edwards, Richard C. "The Social Relations of Production in the Firm and Labor Market Structure," Politics and Society (1975). Fine, Sidney A. "Use of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles to Estimate Educational Investment,“ The Journal of Human Resources (Summer 1968). Gintis, Herbert. "Education, Technology, and the Characteristics of Worker Productivity," American Economic Review (May 1971). Griliches, Zvi, and Mason, William M. "Education, Income and Ability," Journal of Political Economy (May-June 1972). Hargens,Lowell L. and Hagstrom, W. 0. "Sponsored and Contest Mobility of American Academic Scientists," Sociology of Education (1967). Harrison, Bennett. "Education and Underemployment in the Urban Ghetto," American Economic Review (December 1972). Hasman, Karen. "Nonteaching School Jobs Eat Up Budget," Chicago Daily News (January 24, 1972). Hechinger, Fred. "Education's 'New Majority,'" Saturday Review (September 20, 1975). Herrnstein, Richard. "1.0." Atlantic Monthly (September 1971). Jensen, Arthur R. "How Much Can We Boost 1.0. and Scholastic Achieve- ment?" Harvard Educational Review (Winter 1969). Johnston, Denis F. "Education of Workers: Projections to 1990," Monthly Labor Review (November 1973). ‘ 301 Karabel, Jerome. PProtectin the Portals: Class and the Community College," Social Policy (May/June 1974). Karier, Clarence J. "Testing for Order and Control in the Corporate Liberal State," Educational Theory (Spring 1972). Keyser, Marshall. "How to Apply for a Job, " Journal of Colleg_ Placement (Fall 1974). Kristol, Irving. "About Equality," Commentary (November 1972). Ladinsky, Jack. "Higher Education and Work Achievement Among Lawyers," Sociological Quarter1y_(Spring l967). Livingston, J. Sterling. "Myth of the Well-Educated Manager," Harvard Business Review (January-February 1971). Ma, James C. "Current Trends in Recruiting Practices," Journal of College Placement (April- -May 1969). Marglin, Stephen A. "What Do Bosses Do?" The Review of Radical Political Economics (Summer 1974). McPartland, James. "Should We Give Up On School Desegregation," Johns Hopkins Magazine (1970). O'Toole, James. "The Reserve Army of the Underemployed, " Change Magazine (May 1975). Perrucci, Robert and Perrucci, Carolyn Cummings. "Social Origins, Educational Contexts, and Career Mobility," American Socio- logical Review (June 1970). Renshaw, Howard F. “Estimating The Returns to Education," Review of Economics and Statistics (August 1960). Rist, Ray C. "Student Class and Teacher Expectations: The Self; Fulfilling Prophecy in Ghetto Education," Harvard Educational Review (August 1970). Roby, Pamela. "Women and American Higher Education," The Annals of the American Academygof Political and Social Science (November 1972). Rosenthal, Neal H. "The United States Economy in 1985: Projected Changes in Occupations." MonthlygLabor Review (December 1973). Salpukas, Agis. "Plant is Experimentin with Chan in Work on Line " New York Times (April9 .1975). g g g ’ Schultz, Theodore W. "Investment in Human Capital," American Economic Review (1961). 302 Scoville, James G. "Education and Training Requirements for Occupations," Review of EconOmics and StatiStics (1966). Sewell, W. H., and Shah,v. P. "Social Class, Parental Encouragement, and Educational Aspirations,"’ American J0urna1 of SOCiology (March 1968). Shea, Brent Mack. "Two Year Colleges and Inequality," Integrated Education (January-February 1975). Shell, Claude I. and Patrick, Floyd A. “Grades Continue to be Stressed by Recruiters," Journal of College Placement (February- March 1973). Sorkin, Alan. "0n the Occupational Status of Women. 1870-1970," The American Journal of Economics and Sociology (July 1973). Spady, William G. "Educational Mobility and Access: Growth and Paradoxes," American Journal of Sociology (November 1967). Steinem, Gloria. "If We're So Smart, Why Aren't We Rich?" MS. (June 1973). Stiglitz, Joseph E. "The Theory of 'Screening," Education , and the Distribution of Income," American Economic Review (June 1975). Stone, Katherine. "The Origins of Job Structures in the Steel Industry," The Review of Radical Political Economics (Summer 1974). Thurow, Lester C. "Education and Economic Equality," Public Interest (Summer 1967). . Turner, Ralph H. "Modes of Ascent Through Education," American Sociolggjcal Review (1960). Waldman, Elizabeth and Whitmore, Robert. "Children of Working Mothers, March 1973," Monthly Labor Review (May 1974). Wattenberg, Ben J. and Scammon, Richard M. “Black Progress and Liberal Rhetoric," Commentary (April 1973). Weiner, Rgse. "Credentials and Common Sense," Manpower Report (December 1968 . Weiss, Randall. "The Effects of Education on the Earnings of Blacks and Whites." Review of Economics and Statistics (May 1970). Young, Anne M. "The High School Class of 1972: More At Work, Fewer in College," Monthly Labor Review (February 1973). "AT&T Backpay Award Increase," Monthly Labor Review (July, 1975). 303 "GAO Charges Weak Anti-Bias Effort,” Monthly Labor Review (July 1975). "How ggrkgggsgan Get Eight Hours Pay for Five," Business Week (May The Chronicle of Higher Education (September 15, 1975). "The Job Gap f0r College Graduates in the '70' 5," Business Week (September 23, 1972). "What's the Real Unemployment Rate?" Dollarsland Sense (November 1974). "Who Has the Wealth in America," Business Week, (August 5, 1972). II. Books Alchin, Edmund W. ngulation Report 1. East Lansing: Institute for Community Development anH'Services, 1972. Aronowitz, Stanley. False Promises. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1974. Banfield, Edward. The Unheavenly City. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1970. Becker, Gary. Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis with Special Reference to Education. New York: Columbia University Press,1964. Berg, Ivar. Education and Jobs: The Great TraininggRobbery_ New York: Praeger Publishers, Inc. , 1970. Bird, Caroline. Born Female. New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1968. . The Case Against College, New York: David McKay Company, Inc , Blau. Peter M. The Dr anization of Academic Work. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1973. , and Duncan, Otis Dudley. The American Occupational Structure. New York: John Wiley and Sons,"Inc., 1967. , and Meyer, Marshall W. Bureaucracy in Modern Society. New York: Random House, Inc., 1971. Boocock, Sarane S. An Introduction to the Sociolggy of Learnigg_. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin Company, 1972. Bottomore, T. B. Elites and Society. Baltimore: Penquin Books. Inc., 1964. 304 Boudon, Raymond. ‘EducatiOn,_Dpp0rtunity_and Social Inequality. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1974. Braverman, Harry. ‘Labor'and Monop01y Capital. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1974. Bright, James R. AutOmation and Management. Boston: Harvard Business School, 1958. Brookover, Wilbur B., and Erickson, Edsel. Sociology of Education. The Dorsey Press, 1975. , Gigliotti, Richard J., Henderson, Ronald P., and Schneider. Jeffrey. Elementary School Social Environments and Achievement. East Lansing: College of Urban Development, Michigan State University, 1973. Burkhead, Jesse. Input and Output in Lar e-Cit Hi h Schools. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1967. Callahan, Raymond E. Education and the Cult of Efficengy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962. Chafe, William Henry. The American Woman: Her Changing SocialI Economic, agd Political Roles, 1920-1970. New or : 0x 0rd University Press, 1972. Clark, Harold F. and Sloan, Harold S. Classrooms on Mainstreet. New York: Teachers College Press, 1966. ' ColemggéIJames. The Adolescent Society. New York: The Free Press, Coser, Lewis. Masters of_Sociologjcal Thought. Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Inc., 1971. Dennison, George. TheLives of Children. New York: Vintage Books, 1969. DeWitt, Laurence B. and Tussing, A. Dale. The Supply and Demandrfor Graduate§_of Hi her Education: 1970 to 1980. Educational Policy Research Center, Researchfieport RR-B, l97l. Doeringer, Peter B. and Piore, Michael J. Internal Labor Markets and Mappower Analysis. Lexington: D. C. Heath andCompany,l971. Domhoff, G. William. The Higher Circles. New York: Vintage Books, 1971. Who Rules America? Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1967. Dowd, Douglas F. 'The Twisted Dream: Ca italist Develo ment in the United States Since 1776. CamBriage: Winthrop Puglisfiers. Inc., —:_v 1974. 305 Drucker, Peter F. Thepfige of Discontinuity. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1969. Durkheim, Emile. 'The‘DiVision'Of'Labor‘in'SOCiety. New York: The Free Press, 1966. Edwards, Richard C., Reich, Michael, and Weisskopf, Thomas E. (ed.). The Capitalist System. _Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972. Emmerij, Louis. Can the School Build a New Social Order? Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, 1974. Etzioni, Amitai. 'Moderngrganizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice- Hall, Inc., 1964. Fantini, Mark, and Gittell, Marylin. Decentralizaton: Achieveing Refbrm. New York: Praeger Publishers, Inc., 1973. Fine, Sidney A. The Nature of Automated Jobs and Their Educational and TraininggReqUTFements. McLean, Virgina: Human Sciences ResearEh, Inc.,Tl964. Friedan, Betty. The Feminine Mystique. New York: Dell Publishing Company, 1963. Friedenberg, Edgar. Comingrofggge in America. New York: Vintage Books, 1965. The Vanishing Adolescent. Boston: Beacon Press, 1964. Gerth, H. H. and Mills, C. Wright (Eds.). Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford University—Press, 1973. Good, Harry G. and Teller, James D. A History of American Education. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1973. Goodman, Paul. Compulsory Mis-Education and The Community of Scholars. New York: Vintage Books. 1964. Growjgg'UpgAbsurd. New York: Vintage Books, 1960. Goodman, S. M. The Assessment of School Quality. Albany: New York State Education Department,“1959. Gordon, David M. (Ed.). Problems in Political Economy: An Urbgp_ Perspective. Lexington: D. C. Heath and Company, 1971. Gordon, Margaret S. 'Higher EduCation and the Labpp_Market. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1974. 306 , and Thal-Larsen, Margaret. 'Employer P01i¢ie§lina Changing LaEOr Market. Berkeley: Institute of Industrial Relations, 1 6 . Gordon, Milton M. ' ‘ASSimilation‘in'American Life. New York: Oxford University Press, 1964. Gordon, Robert A. and Howell, James E. ‘Higher Educati0n for Business. New York: Columbia University Press, 1959. Greer, Colin. ThegGreat School Legend. New York: Basic Books, 1972. Gross, Ronald and Beatrice (Eds.). Radical School Refbrm. New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1969. Halsey, A. H., Floud, Jean and Anderson, C. Arnold (Eds.). Education, Economy, and Society. New York: The Free Press, 1961. Hanson, W. Lee. and Weisbrod, Burton. Benefits, Costs,,and Finance§_ of Higher Education. Markham, 1969. Harriggton, Michael. The Other America. New York: Macmillan Company, 63. Harris, Seymour (Ed.). Education and Public Policy. Berkeley: McCutchen, 1965. Haveman, Ernest and West, Patricia S. They Went to College: The College Graduate in America Today. New York: Harcourt, Brace Herndon, James. The Way It Spozed to Be. New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1968. Hofstadter, Richard. The Age of Reform: From Bryan to F.D.R. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1963. Holt, John. How Children Fail. New York: Dell Publishing Company, 1970. Horowitz, Morris A. and Herrnstadt,I.The Trainin of Tool and Die Makers. Boston: Department of Economics, ortfieastern university, 1969. Illich, Ivan. Deschoolin Societ . New York: Harper and Row Pub- lishers, Inc., 1971. Jaffe, A. J. and Froomkin.J.Igchnologygand Jobs. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1968. Jencks, Christopher, et al. In uality: A Reassessment of the_§ffect of Famil and Schoolin n rica. New York: Harper and’Row PuBlisfiers, 1973. a and Riesman. David. .The Academic Revolution. New York: Doubleday, 1968. 307 Katz, Michael. Class, Bureaucracy, and Schools. New York: Praeger Publishers, Inc., 1972. . The Irony of Early School Reform. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968. Kohl, Herbert. The Open Classroom. New York: Random House, 1969. Kolko, Gabriel. The Triumph of Conservatism. Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1967. . Wealth and Power in America. New York: Praeger Publishing, 1962. Kozol, Jonathan. Death at an EarlygAge. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin Company , 1967 . Free Schools. Boston: Hougthon, Mifflin Company. 1972. Lensk156gerhard. Power and Privilege. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., Lester, Richard A. Hiringractices and Labor Competition. Research Report Series 88-91, Princeton University Industrial Relations Section, 1954. . Manpower Planning;in a Free Society. Princeton: Princeton University Press , 1966. Levine, Daniel V. and Havighurst, Robert J. (Eds.). Farewell to Schools??? Worthington: Charles A. Jones Publishing Company, 1971. Link, Arthur Stanley. Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive Eragg1910-1917. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1954. Lipset, Seym0ur Martin, and Bendix, Reinhard. Social Mobility in Industrial Society. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1959. Clas§g_Status, and Power. New York: The Free Press, 1966. Marx. Karl. Das Kapital. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1970. McDill. Edward and Rigsby, Leo. The Academic Impact of Educational Climates. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins university Press, 1973. Mecklenburger, James A. and Hostrop R. (Eds).Education Vooghers From Theory to Alum Rock. Homewood: ETC Publications, 1972. Miller, S. M. and Riessman, Frank (Ed.). Sociel Classand Social Policy. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1968. 308 Mills, Nicolaus (Ed.). The Great School Bus Controverey. New York: Teachers College Press, 1973. Milner, Murray. The Illusion of Equality. Josey-Bass, Inc., 1972. Mitchell, Juliet. Women's Estate. New York: Vintage Books, 1973. Mollenkopf, W. G. and Melville, S. D. A Study of Secondary School Characteristicsyee Relateggto Test Scores. Research Bulletin 56-6, Princeton: Educational Testing Service, 1956. Mosteller, Frederick and Moynihan, Daniel P. (Eds.). On quelity of Educational Opportunit . New York: Random House, 1972. Mowry, George Edwin. The Era of Theodore Roosevelt, 1900-1912. New York: Harper andTBrothers, 1958. Mueller, Eva. Technological Advance in an Expanding Economy. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, 1969. National Urban League Research Department. _9uarterly Economic Report on the Black Worker. Washington, D.C.: National Urban League, 1975. Neill, A. S. Summerhill: A Radical Approach to Child Rearing. New York: Hart Publishing Company, 1960. Nisbet, Robert. Twilight of Authority. New York: Oxford University Press, 1975. Noland, E. William and Bakke, E. Wright. Workers Wanted. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1949. Parkin, Frank. Class, Ineguality and Political Order. New York: Praeger Publishers, Inc., 1972. PESC Collective. PESC Papers on Education: What they Don't Teach You in School. Ann Arbor: Program for Educational and Social Change, 1974. . Pierson, Frank C. The Education of American Businessmen. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1959. Reimer, Everett. School is Dead. Garden City: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1972. Rosenthal, Robert and Jacobson, Lenore. Pygmalion in the Classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1968. Rousseau, Jean Jacques. His Educational Theories Selected from Emile, Julie, and Other Writingg. Woodbury: ‘Barrow's Educational Series, 1942. 309 Rowbotham, Sheila. Women, Resistance, and Revolution. New York: Vintage Books, 1972. Schuler, E. A., Hoult, T. F., Gibson, 0. L., and Brookover, W. B. (592.). Readings in Sociology. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, Scoville, James G. The Job Content of the U. S. Economy 1940-1970. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1969. Sexton, Patricia C. Education and Income: Inequalities in Our Public Schools. Chicago and New York: Viking Press, 1961. Sharp, L. M. Education and Employment: The Early Careers of Colleg_ Graduates. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1970. Shimberg, Benjamin, Essex, Barbara F., and Kruger, Daniel H. Occupa- tional Licensin : Practices and Policies. Washington, D.C.: PuBlic Affa1rs Press, 1972. Silverman, Bertram, and Yanowitch, Murray (Eds.). The Worker in 'Post-Industrial' Capitalism. New York: The Free Press, 1974. Smigel, Erwin O. The Wall Street Layyer. New York: The Free Press, 1964. Smith, David N. Who Rules the Universities? New York: Monthly Review Press, 1974. Smuts, Robert W. Women and Work in America. New York: Columbia University Press, 1972. Spring, Joel. Education and the Rise of The Corporate State. Boston: Beacon Press, 1972. Sweezy, Paul M. The Theoryyof Capitalist Development. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1968. Swinton, David H. and Ellison, Julian. Aggregate Personal Income of the Black Population in the U.S.A. 1947-1980. New York: Black Economic Research Center, 1973. Taubman, Paul, and Wales, Terence. Higher Education and Eernings. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company, 1974. Thomas, Lawrence. The Occupational Structure and Education. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1956. Turner, Frederick J. The Frontier in American History. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1920. 310 Turner, Ralph H. The Social Context of Ambition. San Franciso: Chandler Publishing Company, l964. U.S. Riot Commission. Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders. New York: Bantam Books, l968. ' Veblen, Thorstein. The Higher Learning in America. New York: Sentry Press, l9l8. Weinstein, James. The Corporate Ideal in the Liberal State: l900-19l8. Boston:. Beacon Press, 1968. , Williams, William Appleman. The Contours of American History. Chicago: Quadrangle Books, l966. Windham, Douglas M. Education, Equality, and Income Redistribution. Lexington: Heath, 1970. Wolkinson, Benjamin. Blacks, Unions, and the EEOC: A Study 9: Administrative Futility. Lexington: Lexington Books, 1973. Zeitlin, Irving M. Ideolggy and the Development of Sociological Theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall} Inc., l968. The Manpower Revolution: Its Policy Consequences, Excerpts from Senate Hearings Before the Clark Subcommittee on Employment and Manpower. Garden City: Anchor Books, 1966. Michigan State University Placement Manual: Fall l973. Rahway, N.J.: Placement Publications,TInc., 1973. Michigan State University Placement Manual: Winter/Spring l975. Rahway, N.J.: University Communications, Inc., l975. Opportunitig§_for Women in Higher Education. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, l973. Recruitin Trends Survey 1974-75. East Lansing: Michigan State Univer- sity P acement Services, 1974. III. Government Publications Bauder, Don. The Housinggand Community Development Act of l974: Promise and Perfbrmance. Program Services Division, Michigan Department ofCiviTRights, l975. Bedell, Mary, and Bowley, Roger. Formal Occupational Training of ’ ‘ Adult Workers. U.S. Department ofTLabor. Research Mbnograph No.‘§. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, l964.4 3]] Coleman, James, et al. Eguality of Educational Opportunity. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. ‘Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966. Diamond, Daniel E. and Bedrosian, Hrach. Hiring Standards and Job Perfbrmance. U.S. Department of Labor, Research Monography No. 18. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, l970. Folger, John K. and Nam, Charles B. Education of the American Popul- tion. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967. Miller, Ann. Occupations of the Labor Force AcCordin to the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. Statistical Evaluation eport No. 91 Office of Management and Budget, l97l. Report of the National Commission on Technology, Automation, and Economic Progress. Technolo and the American Econo . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Governmenf Printing Office, I§56. . ' President's Commission on Higher Education. Higher Education for American Democrac Vol. 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government r n 1ng 1ce, 947. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Agegandigarnipgs by Occupation for the United States: 1970 Census of Population. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Current Population Reports. Series P-GO, No. 100. "Household Money Income in 1971 and Selected Social and Economic Characteristics of Households," Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Current Population Reports. Series P-GO, No. 99, "Money Income and Poverty Status of Families and Persons in the United States: 1974," Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, l975. ’ U.S. Bureau of the Census. Currentigppulation Reports. Series P-ZO, No. 279. "Population Profile of the United States: l974." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, l975. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Earnings by Occupation and Education: l970. Census of Population. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,T1973. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1957. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1960. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Occu ational Characteristics: l960 Census of Population. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. 312 Bureau of the Census. Decupational Characteristics: 1970 Census of Population. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing ce, . Bureau of the Census. Occupation by Industry: l97O Census of Pg7ulation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, i 3. Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States l973. Washington, D.C.: U15. Government Printing O 1ce, Bureau of the Census. The Social and Economic Status gf the Black Population in the'United States. Washington,D.C.: U.S. Government Printing‘O ce, Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1 1.225- Nashington. D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974. 1 Bureau of the Census. United States Census of Population,_]950: Industrial Characteristics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Pr nt1ng 1ce, Commission on Civil Rights. The Federal Civil Rights Enforcement Effbrt. Washington, D.C.: U. 5. Government Printing Office, 1970. Commission on Civil Rights. The Federal Civil Ri hts Enforcement Effort--A Reassessment. Washington, D.O.: U.S. vernment Printing Office, l97l. Commission on Civil Rights. The Federal Civil Rights Enforcement Effort--A Reassessment. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1973. Commission on Civil Rights. The Federal Civil Rights Enforcement Effort--l974. Vol. I- VII. Washington, D. C: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974 and 1975. Commission on Civil Rights. Racial Isolation in the Public Schools. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967. Commission on Civil Rights. School Desegregation in Ten Communities. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, l973. Commission on Civil Rights. TwentyjearsU After Brown: The Shadows of_the Past. Washington, D. C: .gGovernment Printing Office, 1974. Department of Commerce. Social Indicators 1973. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1973. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education. Digest of Educational Statistics l972. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, l973. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. 313 Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education. Di est 0f EducatiOnal Statistics 1974. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Gavernment PrintingO Office, 1975. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Federal Reg_ster "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Guideiines on Employee Selection Procedures" (August l, 1970). Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education. Projections of Education Statistics_to 1983-1984. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, l974. Department of Labor. Educational Attainment of Workers, March l97l. Special Labor Force Report 140.1972. Department of Labor. Educational Attainment of Workers, March 1972. Special Labor Forceflieport, T48. l972. Department of Labor. Employment of High School Graduates and Drppoutg, October 1968. Special Labor Force Report 108, l969. Department of Labor. Em loyment of Hi h School Gradutes and Dropouts,_October l972: Te High school Class of 1972. Special Labor1 Force Report, 155, 1973. Department of Labor. Employment and Unemployment in 1974. Special Labor Force Report, 178, l975. Department of Labor. Estimates of Worker Trait Reguirements far 4, 000 Jobs as Definediin the 1944 Dictionary of Occupational Titles. Washington, D. fic U. S Government Printing Office, 1957. Department of Labor. Fact Sheet on the Earnings Gap. Women's Bureau, l97l. Department of Labor. Job Losers,tLeavers, and Entrants: Traits and Trends. Special Labor Force Report l57, l973. Department of Labor. Man ower Re art of the President 1972. Washington, D.C.: U.S. vaernment Printing Office, l972. Department of Labor and U. S. Department of Health, Education, and. Welfare. Manpower Report of the President, l974. Washington, D. C: U. S__Government Printing Office l974. Department of Labor. Selected Characteristics of Occupations, (Physicai Demands, Working Conditions, Traini_gTime) l966--A Su lement to the Dictionar of Occu ational Titles. Washington, 0.0.: U.S. G5vernment Printing Office, l966. Department of Labor. Underutilization of Women. Women's Bureau, l97l. 314 U.S. Dggartment of Labor. Underutilization of Women. Women's Bureau, IV. Unpublished Documents Berkey, Leonard. "The Internal Colonial Model of Race Relations in the United States: An Empirical Test," M.A. Thesis, Michigan State University, 1974. - Collins, Randall. "Education and Employment: A Study in the Dynamics of Stratitifcation." Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, 1969. Farley, Reynolds, "The Economic Status of Blacks: Have the Gains of the 19605 Disappeared in the T9705?" Paper presented to the 70th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, San Francisco, August 1975. Hill, Richard C. “The Fiscal Crisis of the State: A Case Study of Education in Detroit." Paper presented to the Eighth World Congress of Sociology, Toronto, 1974. Kariger, Roger Hughes. "The Relation of Lane Grouping to the Socio- Economic Status of Parents in Three Junior High Schools.“ Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, l962. Human Designs Division, Infbrmation Science Incorporated. Reviepiand Analysis of the Alameda County Decision. Montvale, N.J., l974. . LIBRRRIES llflifl‘liiflmeililm‘iwl‘nl IH‘ 00817