There are social economic inequalities in political engagement. Members of particular social classes are more involved with the politics than others. This issue begins earlier than we think and it is crucial that it changes. Education does not teach children how to make their voice heard or even to be interested in politics. Why does this happen?

Education systems are reinforcing social economic inequalities in political engagement. Research shows that the type of education as well as the level of qualifications of a person affect their probability of political participation (Hoskins & Janmaat 2016).

The differences in political engagement lead to public policy that favours a selected socioeconomic group, that is the middle and upper classes and, in doing so, increases social exclusions (Gallego 2007). The higher socioeconomic classes, the more educated are indeed more powerful in our society. The elite has more say in the politics than anyone else. Firstly, we should understand who the elite are; ‘any superior or privileged group’ but more precisely the term refers to ‘groups defined by their superior power. An elite is a ruling minority’ (Scott & Marshall 2009).

How does education trajectories affect future political involvement?

In the UK education system, there are two types of education that teenagers can undertake: academic and/or vocational. Depending which one they will choose, or rather, will be able to choose considering their previous achievements, has a great impact on their probability to be engaged with politics. This is because there are huge differences in the pedagogy and the curriculum between the two types of education. Vocational training is said to be strengthening working qualities rather than independent, critical thinking (Ten Dam & Volman, 2003).  Teachers are there to create the perfect workers and teach children to obey rules and remain well-ordered.
In their research, Hoskins and Janmat (2016) found that there are differences in political engagement depending on the type of qualifications pupils have as well as their level of attainment.  The data from their research is separated into four levels of attainment:

Level 1 academic and vocational

Level 2 academic (GCSE grades A-C)

Level 2 vocational (GNVQs and BTEC)

Level 3 academic (A-levels)

The graph above shows how likely are pupils to vote depending on the education type and level they have. The researchers used four models of variables in their study:

Model 1 includes only the education pathways.
Model 2 includes factors on socioeconomic background, including education levels of parents and books at home.
Model 3 includes the educational level of parents, books at home, gender, ethnicity, intentions to vote or protest at age 13 and citizenship education received,
Model 4 includes current activity in addition to all the previous variables
(Hoskins & Janmaat 2016)

In simpler words; the graph shows that pupils with the highest academic level of education (A-levels/ purple on the graph) are most likely to vote. The graph indicates that in model 1, 80% of pupils with Level 3 Academic education are likely to vote in comparison to only 48% of pupils with Level 2 Vocational education. The gap in-between the two is shocking and looking further into the graph the differences remain similar.

 

The inequalities in political engagement are born in the schools. There, children are already separated to different paths in life; depending on what skills the teachers decide they have, the qualifications they can gain, the different jobs and socioeconomic statuses they will gain in future. Vocational students will go straight into work after finishing college, whereas A-Level students are likely to go to university after finishing their courses. Here they are already separated, their knowledge and skills and initially their socioeconomic status already differ. But more importantly, they are separated even more through the way they are taught and their minds are shaped! Vocational students are taught to be perfect workers and academic students are taught to be critical thinkers. This pedagogy separates them even further. This means that by the time they are adults, able to participate in politics they will not all be participating because of the way they think and perceive and understand the world around them. Thus democracy, which is meant to serve equally all citizens, serves citizens in the ‘elites’ favour, purely because the ‘elite’ is much more involved in democracy.

 

It is quite clear and obvious that education is one of the best ways of increasing political engagement, however in reality, education is one of the main sources of reproducing socioeconomic inequality. Something has got to change to ensure that all people of the society benefit from democratic politics. This favouritism of the elite needs to stop and the only way for that to happen is to teach children to involve more in politics! The inequalities in political engagement reinforce further inequalities between socioeconomic classes in the society. What should be done is the education system should change the way they prepare children for life after school. Rather than focusing on separating kids into different skills and different working abilities, education should teach them what democracy is and how to make their voice herd. Citizenship education should become a part of curriculum in all schools.

 

 

References

Hoskins, B. and Janmaat, J G. (2016) ‘Educational trajectories and inequalities of political engagement among adolescents in England’, Social Science Research, 56, pp. 73-89, doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2015.11.005

Scott, J. and Marshall, G. (2009) Oxford Dictionary of Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press

Ten Dam, G.T.M. and Volman, M. (2003) ‘Life jackets and the art of living: social competence and the reproduction of inequality in education’, Curriculum Inquiry, 33(2), doi: 10.1111/1467-873X.00254