Advance the education of children, as is being done in some countries, is becoming a topic of conversation very common in our circles; however, the arguments always veer towards the advantages individually, for schooled subject / a, from a psychological point of view and development.
In that sense, the thinking seems to take if we ignore a sociological approach. The first socialization is an issue widely discussed from all disciplines covered in the Faculties of Education Sciences, so I have always found strange neglect existing to the called “Early Childhood Education”. Few people divulge on Early Childhood Education per se from the point of view of the sociology of education and that this education be formal, would change or inertia at the structural level.
Of course, the matter of reflection I propose is very complex and do not intend to delve everything you need, but my intention is, rather, unleash the debate, if only internal to our ideological and ways of conceiving Education convictions and teaching. I will be brief, I promise. Three questions: Is a necessary condition to talk about equal opportunities? Is it a sufficient condition? Is it enough to equal opportunities? As my intention is not to dwell indefinitely, let me, as I said, be brief and give rise to the conclusions of each and every one of you.
1. Is it a necessary condition to talk about equal opportunities?
Primary socialization plays a fundamental role in regard to the linguistic, mathematical, digital and artistic literacy subjects who “inherit”, so to speak, of their family environment the foundations that allow them to adapt or not ” legitimate culture “is transmitted in formal education. Formal education is only compulsory from 6 to 16 years. However, children are left homeless by the system until a very late age: six years, where Forcing schooling. In the case of infants at a distinct disadvantage or belonging to socially excluded groups, that helplessness is a conviction, and the few and few subjects that save this disadvantage is not a confirmation of equality, but rather the opposite and is of hiperselection, no more.
What’s more, considering that the Early Childhood Education (not mandatory) begins at age four, my opinion also extends to this stage. It’s too late. Beyond mandatory, I wish things appeasement first by the guarantees: step by step, we could talk about mandatory if consensus within the teaching community allowed it; should first ensure that there is early childhood education from the earliest stages (since the baby or ceases to be such a thing) free and public, to try to address this inequality base is, in itself, very sharp.
In addition, access to socialization with peers (and superiors, as teachers and teachers) and outside the domestic core has advantages hardly disputable for children in school at an early age, greatly reducing the education gap between the wealthiest groups and greater access to education and the most excluded groups. Public and free childcare provided, on the other hand, the labor insertions people caregivers, increasing the flow of household income and assuming well, another advance as far as equal opportunities are concerned, because.
You may also like to read another article on LananClub: Mindfulness at secondary education
2. Is it a sufficient condition?
No. The main fact student’s inequality refers to structural inequalities and significant disadvantages in family nuclei and scarce material resources at their disposal. In times of crisis, as now, is economically objective limitation of families is more pronounced and extremely dangerous, not only for vulnerable groups. Nursery schools are unaffordable for most families. Equal opportunities for children require system – wide social intervention: otherwise, are patches and not work.
3. Is it enough to equal opportunities?
Yes and no. If the intervention measures to ensure equal access were applied systemically and not only in isolated parts of the system (as in education), although this objective is entirely utopian change, for good, it would be very significant: once the economic and cultural gap is reduced families makes sense to talk about certain equality of opportunity.
However, that equal opportunities will always be truncated by structural and historical factors that make (and cannot hold much hope of change) to certain individuals and groups of people in outsiders, vulnerable or marginalized / as. Often equal opportunities measures require positive discrimination towards these groups to be truly equal. Denying that relevance is unsustainable from the Sociology of Education affirmative action measures aimed at alleviating unequal basis to achieve, as far as possible (very limited), the necessary equality of results.