Function of Education: Integration and Assimilation

One of the functions of education has been to teach students to assimilate to a specific community standard which encourages students to either continue their educations or enter the workforce upon high school graduation. A closer examination of this practice reveals that each student's experience is often predicated on the socioeconomic status of one's parents, creating inequities for children from low income families and privilege for others in the K-12 education system. Many colleges use Vincent Tinto's theory of Student Departure and John Weidman's model of socialization as the foundation for creating programs and activities to help college students integrate into the academic community in an effort to increase persistence and, thus college success. However, implementation of programs utilizing these theories often serve to support students from homes with higher socioeconomic status while inadvertently missing the very students who would most benefit from programs encouraging integration and assimilation, creating a sorting mechanism in the educational system which tends to promise potential social mobility to children from low-income families while concomitantly maintaining the current social hierarchy which traps them in a low-income future.

Keywords Assimilation; Civic Engagement; Demographics; Educational Sociology; Elitist; Homogeneity; Integration; Massification; Normative; Public Good; Reference Group; Socialization; Social Reproduction Theory

The Function of Education: Integration & Assimilation

Overview

Americans portend to use their educational system to teach their students academic skills such as reading and math. They also use it to prepare students to participate in the job market and to encourage them to participate in civic engagement. What many parents do not understand is that the educational system is also used to socialize their children to accept the social position into which they were born. Public schools usually hire their teachers from the local community; thus, teachers imbue local values, culture, and knowledge in their students. Under ideal circumstances, this is a very good model. However, not all circumstances are ideal. Educational writers have exposed inequities in the existing K-12 education models. These inequities tend to socialize children regarding their place in the social framework in ways that privilege children of the wealthy while promulgating disadvantages for other children. In other words, children in some schools are educated to be governors; children in the other schools are trained for being governed (Kozol, 1991).

Jean Anyon's work exposed inequities in how children are trained to accept a status place similar to that of their parents. Children attending schools in low income areas are given few choices, held to strict rules, and are taught to defer to authority figures. Children attending schools in high income areas are given choice-making latitude, are rarely expected to adhere to strict rules, and are taught to critically analyze instruction provided to them from authority figures (Anyon, 1980). Jonathon Kozol's work exposed the inequities in public school funding and described how those inequities ensure the children of the wealthy will excel while children from low-income families receive a lesser form of education that cannot be proven to be less than adequate. The latter sort of education will teach children how to vote (deemed to be adequate) without teaching them how to mobilize resources in the political arena to meet their needs (Kozol, 1991). In this way, education becomes a sorting mechanism which tends to promise potential social mobility to children from low-income families while concomitantly maintaining the current social hierarchy which traps them in a low-income future (Zhang & Thomas, 2005).

According to Social Reproduction Theory, a student who is graduating from high school has already received strong messages and concurrent training which will work to maintain the social class into which the student has been born. Most low-income students will graduate from high school with strong technical training and will be encouraged to enter the workforce. Students from the middle and upper classes will graduate from high school with strong academic skills and will be encouraged to enter a college or university. It is in this way that students are sorted into an existing class structure which will be largely maintained via the educational process (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977; McLeod, 1987).

During the K-12 years children primarily attend neighborhood schools. Children are assimilated into the existing community and culture. Many of the students will only meet students who share similar racial, cultural, and economic backgrounds. In schools where children of varying economic backgrounds are in attendance, the schools often track students into classes based on economic criteria. In this way, there is differentiation in what the children are taught and with whom the children associate. These students are socialized to the societal norms of the communities in which they were born and they may never even be aware of the "other" class of students within their school (Gandara, 1995). Upon graduation, students from every socio-economic class will contemplate entry into a college or university; their preparatory periods will obviously have been very different based upon the socialization process embedded in the current educational curriculum.

American colleges have always experienced tensions regarding their true purpose. Initially, college was conceptualized as an elitist educational forum in which men (and only men) could become better citizens and leaders. However, as early as 1850, men receiving a college education were quick to realize how they would personally benefit from their time spent in institutions of higher education. College was always intended for the "aristocracy" (Rudolph, 1962, p. 66), and the men who attended the Land Grant universities (i.e., farmers, engineers, etc.) noticed a college education could also be used as an excellent social elevator. Over the next several decades, colleges became institutions styled to serve all types of American citizens. After World War II, the advent of the Cold War and enhanced veterans benefits began a massification of colleges which continues today. Federal and state governments participated in paying for college because it was considered largely as a public good. Women, people of color, children from low-income families, and others were slowly included in efforts to make college accessible to everyone.

As massification efforts grew, college became the American icon of opportunity. Everyone wanted the opportunity to attend college. Unfortunately, not all students who came to the colleges and universities were prepared to succeed and eventually graduate (Rudolph, 1962; Tinto, 1982). College administrators needed to identify ways to make college work for their newly diversified population. A few theorists stepped forward with ideas regarding how to engage a diverse group of students in a college lifestyle. These theorists had come to the conclusion that students could succeed in college once they had mastered the necessary social adjustments. Vincent Tinto developed a Theory of Student Departure which noted how pre-college experiences affect each student's commitment and intention to attend and persist in the college environment. The implicit foundation of this theory was that the white, male colleges of the past were the optimal models of college success and that those who were not white males were working from a deficit which needed to be addressed.

Further Insights: Higher Education

Tinto's Theory of Student Departure

Tinto's model is still one of the most widely cited models in student retention/dropout literature. It utilizes a commonsense approach incorporating the notion of integration at its center. Tinto's primary hypothesis is that a student's decision to persist or voluntarily drop out can be predicted by the degree of academic and social integration attained by that student. Levels of academic and social integration may ebb and flow over time. However, a student who has high goal commitment (i.e., very committed to earning the diploma) or high social commitment (i.e., well integrated into the institution's social structure) will choose to persist. Academic integration is often measured by grades, perceptions of academic ability, a connection with the subjects being studied, identification with one's role as a student, and identification with the academic norms and values of the college or university.

Social integration can be measured by whether the student has connected with a friendship group (even if it is a minor group), positive interactions with professors and staff, and whether the student feels a fit with the college or university (Draper, 2003; Tinto, 1975). This theory reinforces (and is often the foundational theory used to obtain funding for) programs promoting and encouraging student involvement and/or programs which help students identify and connect with others who are like them. Campus events are the essential centerpiece to the integration efforts. However, it is the rare middle to lower class college student who can afford to attend college while not working. Thus, students born to upper income families will have a better opportunity to become well integrated in the academic social community while students born to lower income families will be busy working to afford the college experience. They may have fewer opportunities to experience social integration. Students who must work to remain in school often take higher paying jobs located off-campus. These jobs often interfere with integration when the student is unable to attend events or make social connections on campus because of work conflicts.

However, students who can afford to work on campus for less than 20 hours per week may reap the benefits of establishing collegial relationships with professors and administrative staff. They may establish a good fit in a different sense, since they miss out on many of the campus events and often lack adequate study time (Walpole, 2003). Additionally, many students who must be employed in order to afford college will choose to live at home and attend a school based on proximity, rather than pay to live on campus. Once classes are finished, they do not have many places on campus to hang out (or seldom a purpose in doing so). They go home (or to work) and miss out on opportunities to integrate into the college culture.

One factor of integrating into a culture is attaining knowledge of the rules governing the culture. Students who live off campus have fewer chances of being exposed to their colleges' rules (or even how college differs from high school). One student provided this example:

I had to work to put myself through college. I didn't mind it at all. But now I realize the disadvantages to this option. I was the first in my family to attend college and graduate. In addition to taking a full load of coursework, I was working full time. I didn't have time to participate in campus events or to go hang out after classes. After following this path for three years, I started dating a guy who was in one of my classes. One night he casually asked me when I would graduate. I told him I didn't know….I had been attending classes for about three years so I most likely would graduate the next year. He asked me what my major was. I told him I had no idea—I didn't really know what a major was…my boyfriend proceeded to explain to me what no one at the college had ever bothered to convey. I learned I needed to select a major and that I needed to apply to graduate (both were foreign concepts to me). I knew about the requisite courses and I had already taken them but I had never been clued into how college really even worked! Thanks to him, I selected a major, applied for graduation, and graduated. I don't know if I really would have graduated if I had not been fortunate enough to date him (Personal Communication, July 14, 2008).

Colleges and universities have become more cognizant of the integration needs of their incoming students. They provide myriad forms of pre-college orientation, resource centers for identified minority groups, and various clubs in which students can participate. However, the troubling fact remains: college expenses have soared in the past decade, and this forces more students to work while attending college. The clubs and resource groups can help to integrate students or can inadvertently work to segregate students. The groups may work well for students who can afford to stay on campus and participate while failing to meet the integration needs of working students.

Models of Undergraduate Socialization

Building on Tinto's theory, John Weidman (1989) created a model of socialization which shows there are forces both inside and outside of the college creating impacts on college students. The students do not appear on the college steps as a blank slate. They bring with them varied experiences, values, aspirations, and attitudes. They identify with the social norms created and maintained by their parents and their noncollege reference groups. Weidman showed how the pressure to integrate creates a stress on the college students who do not fit the typical college demographics. Part of the college experience often involves challenging students to question their own belief systems as part of the educational experience. These challenges do not occur in a vacuum. The students are still influenced by their parents and past social groups and must navigate the tensions created when the various socialization experiences conflict. The in-college normative pressures are more complex and compelling than the pre-college normative pressures. The students will need to create balance among the various normalizing pressures as they seek to remain somewhat integrated in their past communities while assimilating to the new ideas regarding potential values, goals, aspirations, and identities of the institution.

During this same period of time Tinto began to enhance his original Theory of Departure. Where his initial theory was derived from Émile Durkheim's Theory of Suicide, his enhancement was based on the Rites of Passage theory (Van Gennep, 1960). Students must pass through three stages of rites of membership in order to become properly integrated into the college environment:

• Separation,

• Transition (Integration), and

• Incorporation (Assimilation).

First, they must successfully navigate Separation. Students entering the college environment are simultaneously exiting their high school and family communities. This separation may be most difficult by students who come from qualitatively different environments based on socio-economic status, ethnicity, and value orientation. (A student who chooses to live at home will not have as intense an experience. However, the benefits may also be weaker for that student.) The period of separation is critical and colleges are wise to provide prolonged orientations and programs promoting collegiality among the new students to facilitate movement from this stage to the next transitional stage.

The second stage is called Transition (or Integration). It is during this stage that the students fill the spaces left by leaving their old communities with something new as they work to become a member of their new college community. At this point, the students are neither strongly bound to their past communities nor firmly tied to their future ones. This is often a time of stress and bewilderment for new students. Students whose parents have already exposed them to the norms and behavior patterns shared by most college graduates will have an easier time than first generation college students, students from very small rural communities, or students from low income or minority families. Colleges can provide up-front supports to students in the form of financial aid, extended orientation programs which provide social and academic supports during the first semester, frequent and consistent first year advising sessions, and opportunities for students to succeed (Tinto, 1975; Weidman, 1989; Tinto, 1982).

The last stage is Incorporation (or Assimilation ). Once Separation and Transition are accomplished, the student works to identify and adopt the beliefs and behaviors of the college community. The student must have frequent and meaningful contact with peers and faculty in order to establish competent intellectual and social membership. If Incorporation does not occur, the student will notice a lack of fit and is more likely to drop out. Colleges can provide fraternities, sororities, and extra-curricular activities to support students in assimilating to their new environment.

In short, theory suggests college success hinges on the student's ability to join the already existing homogeneous group and adopt its values and behaviors (Tinto, 1988). The suggested supports for the three phases discussed above would appear to help students successfully navigate personal transitions so they can succeed in the college environment. However, working students are not always able to afford the time or money required to participate in these activities. Additionally, students whose early life experiences did not socialize them the values and behaviors promoted by the college are more likely leave college. Hence, these theories leave little room for creating diversity on the college campus.

Conclusion

As stated before, colleges seek to inculcate values and behaviors on students as part of the educational process. When the school lacks diversity in both racial and socioeconomic variables students come to adopt see homogeneity as a value inherent in the culture. It is difficult to teach students to value, or even tolerate diversity without providing a diverse culture in which they can come to know, trust, and understand difference.

Terms & Concepts

Assimilate: To become part of a new culture, group, or society by adopting their values, beliefs, and behaviors.

Civic Engagement: Actions taken by individuals or groups to identify and address issues of public concern. These activities include (but are not limited to) voting, service learning, volunteering in a community to help alleviate social problems, and organizational participation in solving social problems.

Demographics: Variables (e.g., age, income, sex, occupation, and educational attainment) collected with the intent to group people into defined categories.

Elitist: The belief that a small group of people who enjoy high intellectual, social, or economic status are entitled to privileges not available to the general public.

Homogeneity: The state of being similar, or the same, as everyone else in one's community.

Integration: Integration is more complex than a simple connection between the student and the university. Integration creates a link between previously separate entities which allow both entities to work together in a balanced way while each maintains an independent agency.

Massification: Colleges and universities altered their curriculums and entrance requirements in an effort to open higher educational opportunities to all people from all walks of life—in other words, to allow the masses entrance into higher education.

Normative: Enforcing or prescribing a specific way of behaving, speaking, or thinking.

Public Good: A service (e.g., police, firefighters, etc.) which is available to all citizens of a community. The service is not duplicated and seldom exists as a competitive market commodity.

Reference Group: The group of people whose attitudes, beliefs, values, and preferences create the basis of judgment for an individual.

Socialization: The process by which a person is trained to adapt to the needs of society through association with peers and leaders who will teach them acceptable ways to behave, think and communicate.

Bibliography

Anyon, J. (1980). Social class and the hidden curriculum of work. Journal of Education , 162 . 67. Retrieved January 13, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=5702077&site=ehost-live

Basu, R. (2011). Multiculturalism through multilingualism in schools: Emerging places of “integration” in Toronto. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 101, 13071330. Retrieved October 28, 2013, from EBSCO Academic Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=65551303

Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1977). Reproduction in education, society, and culture. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Chan, C. (2013). "Assimilationism" versus "lntegrationalism" revisited: The Free School of the Khong Kauw Hwee Semarang. SOJOURN: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, 28, 329–350. Retrieved October 28, 2013, from EBSCO Academic Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=89370883

Draper, S. W. (2003, May). Tinto's Model of Student Retention. Retrieved June 19, 2008, from http://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/localed/tinto.html

Gandara, P. (1995). Over the ivy wall. New York, NY: State University of New York.

Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. New York, NY: Crown Publishers.

McLeod, J. (1987). Ain't No Makin' It: Aspirations and attainments in a low-income neighborhood. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Rudolph, F. (1962). The American College & University: A history. New York, NY: A. Knopf.

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45 , 89–125.

Tinto, V. (1982). Limits of theory and practice in student attrition. Journal of Higher Education, 53 , 687–700. Retrieved January 13, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=21468749&site=ehost-live

Tinto, V. (1988). Stages of student departure: Reflections on the longitudinal character of student living. The Journal of Higher Education, 59 , 438–455.

Tolsma, J., Lubbers, M., & Gijsberts, M. (2012). Education and cultural integration among ethnic minorities and natives in the Netherlands: A test of the integration paradox. Journal of Ethnic & Migration Studies, 38, 793–813. Retrieved October 28, 2013, from EBSCO Academic Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=74435159

Van Gennep, A. (1960). The Rites of Passage. (M. Vizedon, & G. Caffee, Trans.) Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Walpole, M. (2003). Socioeconomic status and college: How SES affects college experiences and outcomes. The Review of Higher Education , 27 , 45–73.

Weidman, J. (1989). Undergraduate Socialization: A Conceptual Approach. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research (Vol. 5). New York, NY: Agathon.

Zhang, L., & Thomas, S. L. (2005). Investments in human capital: Sources of variation in the return to college quality. In J. C. Smart, & J. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research (Vol. 20). pp. 241–306. Norwell, MA: Springer.

Suggested Reading

Astin, A.W. & Schroeder, C. (2003). What matters to Alexander Astin? About Campus, 8 , 11–18. Retrieved July 14, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=11986720&site=ehost-live

Chang, M. J., Astin, A. W., & Kim, D (2004). Cross-racial interaction among undergraduates: Some consequences, causes, and patterns. Research in Higher Education, 45 , 529–553.

Kerr, C. (2001). The Uses of the University (5th ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kozol, J. (1991). Savage Inequalities: Children in America's Schools. New York, NY: Crown Publishers.

Marvasti, A. B., & McKinney, K. D. (2011). Does diversity mean assimilation?. Critical Sociology, 37, 631–650. Retrieved October 28, 2013, from EBSCO Academic Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=65974284

Nesbitt, T. (2006). What's the matter with social class? Adult Education Quarterly, 56 , 171–187. EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=20517691&site=ehost-live

Wodtke, G. T. (2012). The impact of education on intergroup attitudes: A multiracial analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 75, 80–106. Retrieved October 28, 2013, from EBSCO Academic Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=71883318