The term "social mobility" refers to the movement of individuals or groups from one social class

to another. Individuals may move up or down, or remain at the same social level/scale.
Sociologists study how various structural and social factors contribute to the social mobility of

groups or individuals. Education enhances social mobility by providing for social selection
based on achieved rather than ascribed characteristics of individual.The role of education as an
agent or instrument of social change and social development is widely recognized today.
Education can initiate social changes by bringing about a change in outlook and attitude of man.
It can bring about a change in the pattern of social relationships and thereby it may cause social
changes.

Earlier educational institutions and teachers used to show a specific way of life to the students
and education was more a means of social control than an instrument of social change. Modern
educational institutions do not place much emphasis upon prescribing a certain way of life to the
students. Today education aims at imparting knowledge. Earlier education was associated with
religion. It has become secular today. It is an independent institution now. Education has been
chiefly instrumental in preparing the way for the development of science and technology.
Education has brought about phenomenal changes in every aspect of men's life. Francis J.Brown
remarks that education is a process which brings about changes in the behaviour of society. It is a
process which enables every individual to effectively participate in the activities of society and to
make positive contribution to the progress of society.

Sociologists have identified several types of social mobility:

1. Horizontal social mobility
2. Vertical social mobility
3. Intergenerational mobility
4. Intra-generational mobility
5. Structural Mobility

Education is a very potent means of encouraging social mobility in society. It has multidirectional
influence in promoting social mobility. Education plays such a important role in following ways.

Education is the need of every person because on it depends proper development of man. It is
education that reveals the latent qualities and potentiates of man and enables him to understand „Self
and the environment surrounding him.

Education sharpens the intellect, widens the vision, helps in the wholesome and balanced development
of man and above all it leads to social, economic and political development of a nation.
Both the streams of education i.e. formal and Non-formal play a great role in bringing about social
mobility.

4. Formal education is directly and causally related to social mobility. This relationship is generally
understood to be one in which formal education itself is a cause or one of the cause of vertical social
mobility.

5. Education is directly related to occupational mobility and the subsequent improvement lin economic
status and on the other hand, kit forms and element of social change.

Persons with higher education and better employment are respected more in the society.

6. It is a purpose of education to develop within the individual such motivation as will make him to work
hard for the improvement of his social position.

7. Higher education helps in gaining higher income and thus, education is an important means for
upward social mobility.

8. A change in occupation is considered to be the best single indicator of social mobility. The reason for
it is that occupational status is closely correlated with educational status. Income style of life and the
other determinants of class status.

9 Education helps students belonging to lower strata of the society to go up in the social scale and attar in
a high social position in the society.

10. Education helps in preparing one-self employment , which is an important aspect of social uplift
meant.

11. The popularity of education among women has considerably altered the social status of women. It has
helped in raising their social position , status and achievement of high social prestige; which indicates
upward social mobility of the women.
Medium of instruction in educational system can play agreat role in bringing about mobility among the
people of the society. One of the effects of adopting a regional language as a medium of instruction in
schools and colleges is that it hinders spatial mobility of students and teachers which is related to both
horizontal and vertical social mobility.The teachers belonging to the lower case , by joining this noble
profession of teaching. Help in upward social mobility. Teachers engaged in research work innovations
and imparting higher education help ;in breaking the barriers of caste and are respected by the students
community for their help ,guidance and scholarly taste and talent and promote intergenerational social
mobility. Education is a means to achieve higher social status and position in society . Hence, all students
try to obtain more and more education to gain higher and higher social status without education.
Achievement of higher status or social, mobility is not possible Content of Education, Amount area
and college and universities play an important part in the social mobility of students.
Not only the formal system of education but the non-formal
system of education also acts as an important channel of
social mobility. This system helps individuals who were
devoid of the opportunities of education at a proper age to
educate themselves.
There are various ways of facilitating social mobility , such
as political power, marriage, family affiliations and
education, But the most sought after lis education which is
readily available to more people as educational facilities are
expanded all over the world. Education is regarded as the
channel of mobility as it is:
 High educational achievement is the aspiration of people .
 Few would question about a person‟s integrity when high
academic qualification.
 Education has high relationship with income and
occupation. The higher the educational level, the more
prestigious the occupation, leading to higher annual
 This turn is associated with property , prestige, and
Formal education is closely linked to upward social mobility
and in this aspect, schools play an important role in sorting
out individuals into their prospective levels, This is done
through the system of examinations, supervision and
promotions, Thus, education can assist the movement of
persons into the top positions in society or elite mobility .
Hence , formal education has become a prerequisite for
many established professions such as doctors, lawyers,
accountants, teachers, engineers and so forth. How does
education enhance social mobility?
 First, education plays the role of a mechanism whereby
social class positions are maintained across generations. A
person from a higher social class is more likely to have be
better educated which will enable him or her to maintain
social class position.
 Second , education acts as a mechanism for social
mobility. In this case, access to education is the key in
determining the extent of mobility an individual can aspire
in society. However, this is only possible if everyone gets
an equal education; thus providing an avenue for mobility
among the disadvantaged. For this group of people ,
education serves to move upwards or to reduce the
likelihood of downward mobility.
Education has a functional value as well as a symbolic value.
What is meant by functional value? Education is said to have
a functional value when a person attends university to study
education and upon graduation becomes a teacher. Or a
person who studies pharmacy and becomes a pharmacist.
Here education has a functional value. What is meant by
symbolic value? You could have a situation where a person
who graduates withy a degree in engineering but chooses not
want to work. Instead he uses the degree as a symbol of
status, Similarly, an uneducated man works hard and earns
money to send his daughter to study in a private college.
When his daughter graduates and gets good job,, the
daughter‟s education ;is seen as symbol of value. In the
United States, after 1900, parents were convinced that
educating their children would open opportunities for better
jobs and salaries, Schools and higher education institutions
began developing and designing programmers to meet the
needs of the market. Student enrolment in technical and
engineering courses increased because there were more job
opportunities in factories and industries. In short, stress was
on the functional value of education. Great Britain and
Australia also stressed on the functional value of education
in the 1940s with emphasis on educating children at the
secondary and tertiary levels, Prior to this, societies in these
countries believed that people could be successful in
polities, business, and public service even without formal
education.
4. A Case Study: Indian Government’s Policy
on Social Mobility
3) Along with the central government, the state
governments of India to follow a policy of reservation

 Education and Mobility

Education and Mobility

views 2,182,418 updated
EDUCATION AND MOBILITY
One of the main reasons education is valued so highly in modern societies is the role it plays in
relation to social mobility and reproduction. This role has long been debated between those who
emphasize its contribution to social mobility and those who focus on its contribution to social
reproduction. In order to understand this debate, it is useful to review the key concepts and
theoretical perspectives before considering the empirical evidence and then offering a resolution.

Social stratification refers to institutionalized inequality, that is, to hierarchically structured

social positions (strata) and to the inequality in social rewards received by people who belong to
different strata. Social stratification is based mainly on class or status, although other forms of
stratification exist (for elaboration, see Grusky and Takata 1992; Haller 1992). Class is the term
preferred by theorists who view the social order as consisting of distinctive economic groupings
struggling to maximize their interests vis-à-vis each other, while status is preferred by theorists
who perceive a continuing distribution of socioeconomic variation without clear-cut divisions
and conflict.

Social mobility is the movement from one class or status to another. The emphasis here, as with
most studies of social mobility, is on intergenerational mobility, which refers to the change in
class or status from parents to their adult children. An example of intergenerational mobility is
when the daughter or the son of peasants becomes a doctor. In contrast, when the child of
peasants ends up being a peasant, it is an example of social reproduction.

The class or status positions that individuals occupy in society are usually attributed to both
ascriptive and achievement processes. These are generally viewed as opposite or contradictory
processes involving either ascribed characteristics based on biological factors and family of
origin or achieved characteristics based on individual traits and behaviors. Stratification systems
that emphasize ascriptive characteristics for class or status placement are defined as "closed" and
lead to status inheritance or class reproduction. Those stratification systems that emphasize
achieved characteristics are defined as "open" and are expected to lead to social mobility.

The opposing positions are formalized in the functionalist and conflict theories of social
stratification. With respect to the role of education in producing social mobility, functionalists
argue that different social roles require different skills and abilities and that, if society is to
function effectively, they must be filled by individuals possessing the appropriate skills and
abilities (Davis and Moore 1945). The positions most valued by society are usually the most
critical for societal functioning and the most demanding of individual skills and ability. In order
to encourage individuals to invest the time and effort for training and to attract the best-qualified
individuals, these positions have to be accompanied by higher social and economic rewards.
Education is widely viewed as both developing and reflecting individual skills and abilities, and
it is therefore used as a means of social selection. Thus, education enhances social mobility by
providing for social selection based on achieved rather than ascribed characteristics of
individuals.
Conflict theorists start with the premise that society consists of different groups with conflicting
interest, and they argue that stratification exists because groups that acquired power, wealth, and
prestige want to maintain and enhance their position at the expense of less privileged groups. In
respect to education, most conflict theorists agree that schools help to reproduce and legitimize
the stratification system by portraying attainment as an achieved individual characteristic, while
in fact they select and process individuals on the basis of ascriptive characteristics (Bowles and
Gintis 1976; Bourdieu 1977; Willis 1977).

Empirical research on the role of education in the process of social mobility or reproduction has
produced conflicting evidence. The argument of mobility through education as suggested by
functional theories depends on the validity of two general conditions: (1) Educational attainment
must be used as a criterion of eventual class or status position, and (2) the level of educational
attainment of individuals must not be influenced by the level of their family's class or status.
Boudon (1976) calls these two conditions necessary for social mobility "meritocracy" and
"equality of educational opportunity" respectively. It is important to note that social mobility
exists only if both conditions are met and that each of them alone is a necessary but insufficient
condition for social mobility.

These conditions necessitate a distinction, as far as the role of education is concerned, that is
very rarely made between class and status. The role of education differs considerably in class and
status mobility. Education plays a very weak role in class mobility or reproduction (Katsillis and
Armer 1992). More specifically, the meritocracy condition is not satisfied, since education is
almost never used as a criterion for class. Following Marx, most class theorists see two major
classes, capitalists and workers, although the perception of the exact number of classes and their
composition varies (see Poulantzas 1974; Wright 1978, 1985; for a discussion of the different
views, see Grusky and Takata 1992). Education would play an important role in class
reproduction only if it were a major criterion for becoming a capitalist or a worker and the
vehicle through which the class of the parents is transferred to their children. But it is neither. In
fact, if education were a principle determinant of class, one would expect most Ph.D.'s to be
capitalists and a significant number of children from bourgeois families to become workers
because of educational difficulties (Katsillis and Armer 1992).

A detailed discussion of the process through which class is reproduced is beyond the scope of
this article. It suffices to say here that other institutions, such as the legal system and, more
specifically, the inheritance and property transfer laws, are much more reliable and effective for
the transfer of class from parents to their children. Whether these children have a high school or
higher diploma may be important for other reasons, but it is clearly not essential for the
reproduction of their class (Katsillis and Armer 1992).

In addition, educational attainment does not seem to be influenced by family class. Indeed, there
is no reliable and consistent empirical evidence that supports such a relationship. When class is
measured as determined by the relation of production and not as a status position, it has no effect
on educational attainment, especially if the status position is held constant (see Katsillis and
Armer 1992; Katsillis and Rubinson 1990; Katsillis and Spinthourakis 1997). At first glance, this
would indicate that the equality of educational opportunity hypothesis is satisfied in relation to
class. However, taking into account the absence of meritocracy in class determination, the lack
of influence of class is more an indication of the weak role education plays in class reproduction
or mobility than of its equalizing potential.

In contrast to class, education plays an important role in status allocation. Many studies have
empirically tested the meritocracy hypothesis, and almost all have found a significant
relationship between educational and later socioeconomic attainments (Blau and Duncan 1967;
Duncan et al. 1972; Jencks et al. 1972; Sewell et al. 1969). Indeed, most studies in the United
States have found educational attainment to be among the most important determinants of
occupational and status attainment, although the findings regarding its relationship to income are
not as conclusive (Jencks et al. 1972). In short, the meritocracy condition is well supported by
empirical evidence.

However, other studies of social mobility have found that employing meritocracy in the
allocation of occupational and social status does result in substantial increases in social mobility
(Boudon 1974; Collins 1979). Boudon, using data from Western industrialized countries, and
Collins, analyzing data from the United States, found that the tremendous expansion of education
in the nineteenth and twentieth century left the opportunities for social mobility essentially
unchanged. It did expand the educational attainment of many social groups, but, as the
educational attainment of individuals from lower socioeconomic strata increased, individuals
from higher strata acquired even more education, thus shifting the overall educational attainment
of the population upward but keeping intact the stratification of educational attainment (Boudon
1974; Collins 1979). Given that meritocracy in the allocation of social positions exists, these
findings suggest the lack of equality of educational opportunity.

In relation to the latter, the functionalist position is that schools do provide equality of
opportunity. For empirical support, they point to the numerous empirical studies suggesting that
the process of educational attainment is an achievement process. The best-known model of
educational and status attainment in the United States, known as the Wisconsin model, describes
the process as one whereby individual and background characteristics are translated into
differential status attainment only after they have been transformed into individual performance
and psychological variables (Sewell et al. 1969; 1970). Although this model has been criticized
for excluding social constraints and related structural variables (see Kerckhoff 1976), its
explanatory power remains strong, and it has withstood a number of replications (Alexander,
Eckland, and Griffin 1978; Jencks et al. 1983). Indeed, most of the research on the social
selection process that followed the Wisconsin model has shown that schools select, process, and
reward students based on individual traits and achievements, such as aspirations and ability, and
that educational attainment in turn is the major determinant of occupational status attainment.

Conflict theorists and researchers, by contrast, have not been very successful in describing and
explaining a social selection process that leads to social reproduction. The explanations and the
evidence as to why individuals from higher social strata acquire consistently better education
have not been able to dispute or account for the fact that the educational selection process is
ostensibly an "achievement" process. In general, the argument from a conflict perspective is that
structural limitations imposed on the schooling of some groups restrict their educational success,
thus helping to reproduce the educational and social hierarchies.
Some structural limitations on both the quality and quantity of educational opportunity of
children from low socioeconomic strata do indeed exist. Differential quality and quantity of
schooling may have been especially influential in the past, but it still exists today. Some of the
best schools at all educational levels in the United States are private, with high tuition, and
obviously not all social groups have equal access to or success in these institutions. Also, fewer
institutions, especially at the postprimary levels, are available in rural or low-income areas.
Nonetheless, the impact of variation in quality and quantity of schooling has been reduced over
the years, and evidence does not indicate it as a major determinant of educational attainment. For
example, the wellpublicized report Equality of Educational Opportunity (Coleman et al. 1966)
found that differences between public schools had no significant effect on student performance.
In general, even though some relevant quality differences between schools may still exist today,
this structural variable is a relatively weak factor in explaining differential educational
attainment.

Other structural variables, such as curriculum tracking (Alexander, Cook, and McDill 1978) and
differential treatment by teachers and counselors (Karabel 1972; Rist 1970), also have been
found to exert significant influence on educational attainment. In addition, researchers have
found that cultural differences linked to differential social origin are also responsible for the
unequal educational attainment of students from different social groups (Bourdieu 1977;
Bourdieu and Passeron 1977; DiMaggio 1982). Overall, however, structural limitations and
cultural deficiencies account for only a small amount of attainment differences as compared to
the individual achievement variables.

Summarizing the findings on equality of educational opportunity and meritocracy presents a

paradoxical picture of social stratification and leaves the issue of social mobility through
education largely unresolved: Status attainment research has shown that educational and status
attainment is a meritocratic process based on individual achievement variables, but it has not
explained the relatively low social mobility rates. Critical research, on the other hand, has shown
reproduction of social status, but it has not been able to unseat the equality of opportunity thesis
resting on the association of individual achievement with educational status attainment.

This apparent paradox may be due in part to the fact that research on educational and social
stratification in the last few decades has been dominated by the ascription–achievement
controversy without necessarily examining the relationship between this controversy and the
broader mobility–reproduction debate. The underlying assumption of this focus seems to have
been that achievement leads to mobility and ascription leads to reproduction. But however
important achievement and ascription may be, they do not address the same issues as mobility
and reproduction. A way out of this impasse may be to challenge the assumed correspondence
between what we traditionally consider individual achievements on the one hand and social
mobility on the other. There is no reason to assume that an empirical finding of schooling as an
achievement process is necessarily incompatible with a theoretical argument of schooling as a
process of reproduction. As long as individual qualities and achievements are determined by the
social origin of the student, educational systems can promote not only social reproduction and
individual achievement but also social reproduction through achievement (Katsillis and
Rubinson 1990).
One of the most consistent findings of the research on educational and status attainment is that
the socioeconomic status of the family influences the whole educational process, including
many, if not all, individual student achievements and abilities that lead to socioeconomic status
attainment. Thus, once the assumption that achievement implies social status or class mobility is
abandoned, there is no contradiction between the findings of status attainment research that
indicate an achievement-oriented educational selection system and the findings of critical
research that schools reproduce social status or class inequalities.

This, of course, poses some interesting questions, especially in relation to the meaning and the
role of equality of educational opportunity as we understand it today: Does a process that
transforms family status inequality into differential individual achievements or qualities and,
subsequently, into unequal educational attainment constitute equality of educational opportunity?
If it does not, what constitutes equality of educational opportunity, and how is it attained? We
may have to rethink the whole process of equality of opportunity before we are able to provide
satisfactory answers to the question of education and social mobility.

(see also: Equality of Opportunity; Social Mobility; Social Stratification; Sociology of Education;
Status Attainment)

references
Alexander, K. L., M. A. Cook, and E. L. McDill 1978 "Curriculum Tracking and Educational
Stratification: Some Further Evidence." American Sociological Review 43:47–66.

Alexander, K. L., B. K. Eckland, and L. J. Griffin 1978 "The Wisconsin Model of

Socioeconomic Attainment: A Replication." American Journal of Sociology 81:324–342.

Blau, P. M., and O. D. Duncan 1967 The American Occupational Structure. New York: Wiley.

Boudon, R. 1974 Education, Opportunity and Social Inequality. New York: Wiley.

Bourdieu, P. 1977 "Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction." In J. Karabel and A. H.

Halsey, eds., Power and Ideology in Education. New York: Oxford University Press.

——, and J. C. Passeron 1977 Reproduction in Education, Society, and Culture. Beverly Hills,
Calif.: Sage Publications.

Bowles, S., and H. Gintis 1976 Schooling in Capitalist America. New York: Basic Books.

Coleman, J. S., E. Q. Campbell, C. J. Hobson, J. McPartland, A. M. Mood, F. D. Weinfall, and

R. L. York 1966 The Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Davis, K., and W. Moore 1945 "Some Principles of Stratification. "American Sociological
Review 10:242–249.

DiMaggio, P. 1982 "Cultural Capital and School Success: The Impact of Status Culture
Participation on the Grades of U.S. High School Students." American Sociological Review
47:189–201.

Duncan, O. D., D. L. Featherman, and B. Duncan 1972 Socioeconomic Background and

Achievement. New York: Seminar Press.

Grusky, D. B., and A. A. Takata 1992 "Social Stratification." In E. F. Borgatta and M. L.

Borgatta, eds., Encyclopedia of Sociology. New York: Macmillan.

Jencks, C., J. Crouse, and P. Mueser 1983 "The Wisconsin Model of Status Attainment: A
National Replication with Improved Measures of Ability and Aspirations." Sociology of
Education 56:3–19.

Jencks, C., M. Smith, H. Acland, J. M. Bane, D. Cohen, H. Gintis, B. Heyns, and S. Michelson
1972 Inequality: A Reassessment of Family and and Schooling in America. New York: Basic
Books.

Karabel, J. 1972 "Community Colleges and Social Stratification." Harvard Educational Review
42:521–562.

——, and A. H. Halsey, eds. 1977 Power and Ideology in Education. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Katsillis, J., and J. M. Armer 1992 "Class Reproduction and Status Competition: Incompatible or
Complementary Processes?" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Sociological
Society, New Orleans, LA.

——and R. Rubinson 1990 "Cultural Capital, Student Achievement, and Educational

Reproduction: The Case of Greece." American Sociological Review 55:270–279.

——and J. A. Spinthourakis 1997 "Social Determination of Language Learning in Greek High

Schools." Paper presented at the Twelfth International Congress of the World Association for
Educational Research (WAER), Rethymno, Crete.

Katsillis, J. M., C. Alexopoulos, P. Moustairas, and P. Skartsilas 1997 "Equality of Educational

Opportunity and Social Equality: Concepts, Theory and Practice." In T. Moyne, ed. Sociology of
Greek Education: Review, New Research and Prospects. Pp. 47–60, Patras, Greece: Achaikes
Ekclosis. In Greek.

Kerckhoff, A. C. 1976 "The Status Attainment Process: Socialization or Allocation?" Social

Forces 52:368–381.
Poulantzas, N. 1974 Classes in Contemporary Capitalism. London: Verso.

Rist, R. C. 1970 "Student Social Class and Teacher Expectations: The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
in Ghetto Education." Harvard Educational Review 40:411–451.

Sewell, W. H., A. O. Haller, and G. W. Ohlendorf 1970 "The Educational and Early
Occupational Status Attainment Process: Replications and Revisions." American Sociological
Review 34:1014–1027.

——, and A. Portes 1969 "The Educational and Early Occupational Status Attainment Process."
American Sociological Review 34:82–92.

Willis, P. 1977 Learning to Labor. New York: Columbia University Press.

Wright., E. O. 1978 Class Structure and Income Determination. New York: Academic Press.

——1985 Classes. London: Verso.

JOHN KATSILLIS
J. MICHAEL ARMER

Encyclopedia of Sociology