Sociology 140: Social Stratification

FOR MORE CLASSES VISIT

www.tutorialoutlet.com
Submit your paper electronically to the Soc 140 Canvas site.
Background: This quarter we critically examine the belief that U.S
society is a meritocracy where social mobility

and status attainment are determined solely by talent, hard work,

ambition, and perseverance. In general, we as a

society are comfortable with inequality as long as it is the outcome of

a fair competition our acceptance tends to

rest on the assumption that everyone has an equal opportunity to

succeed, so a persons lack of success can be

attributable only to that person, and not to the society as a whole.

Because of our commitment to the ideals of

competition and meritocracy, policies aimed at reducing inequality

have primarily been aimed at ensuring that

everyone enters the competition (for jobs and the valued rewards of
society) with equal advantages and

disadvantages, i.e., the policies are aimed at equalizing opportunity.

Furthermore, most of the initiatives and efforts

to equalize opportunity have focused on expanding access to and

improving the quality of education. The Assignment: The object of
the final paper project for Sociology 140 is to analyze a social policy
that is aimed

at reducing inequality through the equalization of educational

opportunities by examining the assumptions on which
the policy rests, and assessing whether the policy is likely to achieve
the aim of increasing equality in educational

outcomes. The educational policy you will analyze is the provision of

school vouchers to public school students. I have collected a set of
research materials for this policy that you may use as resources for
your paper. The

materials include: (1) a Frontline documentary that will be shown in

class (the transcript is available on the course

website), and (2) a series of related articles and book chapters.

A complete analysis of the educational policy will include: a

definition/explanation of the policy

identification of the aims of the policy, i.e., what is/was the original
or professed goal of the policy?

identification of the assumptions on which the policy is based, e.g.,

assumptions about the causes of

unequal educational access and outcomes, about the distribution of

resources (including knowledge), etc.

and an evaluation of the verity of those assumptions (e.g., relative to

empirical evidence, logic, critical

analysis, etc.)

an assessment of the degree to which the policy is likely to achieve

its aims. In other words, provide a

reasoned and justified answer to the question: Is this policy likely to

reduce inequality in educational

outcomes? The justification for your answer to this question should be

informed by an assessment of the
verity of the fundamental assumptions on which the policy rests. I
emphasize that you should focus on presenting a balanced
sociological analysis of the policy that draws on the

research materials available to you (discussed below) and the theories,

concepts, and information presented in the

course readings and discussed in class.

Intended audience: The intended audience for this paper is composed

of your Sociology 140 classmates. You

should write as if you are presenting your analysis to your colleagues

in order to inform them with your observations

and convince them that your analysis is sound by providing adequate

supporting evidence. Evaluation Criteria: Your grade on this
assignment will be based on the following criteria:

1) The degree to which you provide a thorough identification of the

aims and assumptions of the policy you

analyze and a reasoned assessment of the likelihood that the policy

will reduce inequality. Correct

identification of relevant theories and concepts presented in class and

accurate use of the related

terminology. You will need to demonstrate comprehension of the

concepts and understanding of the

complexities/subtleties of the social factors that influence inequality

as well as the aims and assumptions of

the policies that are intended to reduce it.

2) The depth and strength of your analysis. A strong analysis is one

that presents ideas clearly and provides

support for those ideas. You will need to support your thesis with
specific information from the resources
you use for your research in such a way as to convince your audience
of the validity of your argument.

3) Organization of your paper. Your paper should present your

analysis in a logical and orderly manner. It

should include an introduction that clearly states the central argument

of the analysis. The body of your

paper should present the evidence that both supports and detracts
from your argument. Finally, your paper

should include a conclusion that summarizes the analysis you have

presented.

4) Mechanics of writing. Correct grammar, spelling, punctuation, and

word choice are essential to a strong and

organized presentation of your analysis. You should strive to make

your writing clear, precise, and concise.

Format and Technical Instructions: Strict adherence to the following

instructions is required:

1) The paper should be 5-7 pages long. It must be computer-produced,

double-spaced, use 12-point font,

and one-inch margins on all sides. Number the pages.

2) Use inline referencing (parenthetical referencing) to cite relevant

materials from the readings and lectures.

Provide a bibliography of all the references cited (the bibliography is

not included in the 5-7 page limit for the

paper).

3) Spell-check and proofread your paper carefully for clarity of ideas

and writing, organization and logic of
presentation, and correct use of words and grammar. A guide to the
basic structure of the paper: Use this basic guide to organize your
paper. Remember that your

goal is to write an ordered, logical, and (above all) readable paper.

The Opener: Tell me what you are going to say

In the opening paragraph(s), you need:

@ To tell the reader what the paper addresses.

@ A focused, limited thesis statement, the main idea or position

controlling the entire paper. Everything

revolves around this claim: I shall argue fill-in-the-blank. The

position placed in the blank is the thesis

and is the most specific sentence of the introductory paragraph(s), but

do not say, In this paper, I am

going to discuss... or I will argue that ... Just state your point.

@ An encompassing scope statement in addition to the thesis

statement; it should include the

significant key ideas that emerge in the body of the paper.

@ A statement about the overall organization of the paper.

@ Reconsider the introductory paragraph(s) after you have written the

rest of the paper. Ask yourself,

What am I really trying to say? Am I saying it clearly and boldly

and with breadth and depth?

The Middle: Say it

The interior of the paper is where you present your description and
analysis; it is where you develop and
support your thesis. The interior of the paper should:

@ Be clear, precise and concise the reader should not have to

struggle with interpretation.

@ See beyond the obvious and look at the issue in a new way.

@ Provide transitional expressions or sentences. Stay away from the

basic First, Second, Next,

Finally. Build coherent, fluid movement between paragraphs by

threading sentences at the beginning

or end of paragraphs that weave relationships and by using key words

found in adjacent paragraphs.

@ Include logical signal words or signposts, such as nevertheless

or however, but should not

become exclusively or overly dependent upon them.

@ Each paragraph should stay unified around a single point, building

topic sentences, relationships, and

explanations of examples that advance the main idea of the analysis.

The Closing: Tell me what you said

The closing paragraph(s) should:

@ Not merely repeat what has already been said in the thesis and
body; take some chances here,

experiment, challenge the reader, but shun redundancy.

@ Bring the main point into sharp focus with fresh language and
thoughtful resolution.

@ Bring closure to the paper, rounding out ideas and thoughts.

Vouchers Debate Resources
Frontline: The Battle Over School Choice

(Note: the website is not maintained anymore, but it is still available:

Web Site:

Resource #1

Astin, Alexander W. 1992. Educational Choice: Its Appeal May be

Illusory, Sociology of Education 65(4):255260.

Coleman, James S. 1992. Some Points on Choice in Education,

Sociology of Education 65(4):260-262.

Sernau, Scott. 1993. School Choices, Rational and Otherwise: A

Comment on Coleman, Sociology of

Education 66(1):88-90.

Resource #2

Berliner, David C. and Bruce J. Biddle. 1995. The Manufactured

Crisis: Myths, Fraud, and the Attack on

Americas Public Schools. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing

Co.

Chapter 5: Poor Ideas for Reform, pp. 173-214.

Resource #3

Engel, Michael. 2000. The Struggle for Control of Public Education:

Market Ideology vs. Democratic Values.

Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Chapter 2: Market Ideology, pp. 18-43.

Chapter 3: Democratic Education, pp. 44-67.

Chapter 4: School Choice, pp. 68-92.

Resource #4

Fuller, Bruce, Richard F. Elmore, and Gary Orfield. 1996. Policy-

Making in the Dark: Illuminating the School

Choice Debate. Chapter 1 (pp. 1-24) in Who Chooses? Who Loses?,

edited by B. Fuller and R.F.

Elmore. New York: Teachers College Press.

Wells, Amy Stuart. 1996. African-American Students View of

School Choice. Chapter 2 (pp. 25-49) in Who

Chooses? Who Loses?, edited by B. Fuller and R.F. Elmore. New

York: Teachers College Press.

Resource #5

Cookson, Peter W., Jr. 1994. School Choice: The Struggle for the
Soul of American Education. New Haven, CT:

Yale University Press.

Chapter 1: Lifestyle Loyalties in an Age of Doubt, pp. 1-16.

Chapter 2: Reformers and Revolutionaries: The Drama of

Deregulation, pp. 17-37.

Resource #6

Wells, Amy Stuart and Robert L. Crain. 1997. Stepping Over the
Color Line: African-American Students in White

Suburban Schools. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Chapter 4: Consumers of Urban Education, pp. 151-179.

Resource #7

Witte, John F. 2000. The Market Approach to Education: An Analysis

of Americas First Voucher Program.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Chapter 2: The Enduring Controversy over Educational Choice, pp.

11-28.

Chapter 4: Who Participates in Choice Programs?, pp. 52-156.

Chapter 7: The Politics of Vouchers, pp. 157-209.