The Importance Of Inequality In Education

B.F. Skinner, an American psychologist, once said: ‘’Education is what survives when what has been learned has been forgotten’’. To clarify, Skinner defined education as acquiring unforgettable knowledge. Yet, the majority of the population considers education and school as synonyms even though anyone who has ever attended school is aware of its focus on remembering information rather than grasping the concepts into long-term memory. Furthermore, the education system can do more harm than good in regards to students’ mental health. Thus, integrating more psychological and sociological considerations in education practices will not only promote long-term academic success but also escalate equality and contribute to the generation of fitter

From personal experience, not many teachers, if any, have even touched the concepts surrounding inequality. Notably, Martin M. Grossack claimed that ‘’the chances are that you were brainwashed into accepting the cultural stereotypes of success and failure, the idea that personal worth is measured by social status.’’ (Grossack, 1965, p. 280). To add on, he suggested training teachers to teach students that their worth is not determined by their social status without being overly optimistic since individuals should be aware of the inequality they indirectly face to confront it and move a step closer to changing society as a whole (Grossack, 1965). The idea of raising awareness for discrimination has also been highlighted by Mustafa Sever as he stated that ‘’ The overwhelming presence of concepts of racial and gender inequalities in critical readings in education may point us towards assuming that a minoritarian approach is adopted, whereby the focus seems to shift away from “low level” phenomena that explain underachievement, for example.’’ (Sewer, 2012, p. 660). In fact, Walton and Cohen (2007, 2011) concluded that African-American college students that attend social sessions designed specifically for them regularly for 3 years

However, even the most supported theories can have opponents as proved by Flora Macleod and Michael Golby who stated that ‘’centralised, highly specified curriculum and its associated assessment procedures limit the possibilities. Perhaps most damaging, however, are the limitations imposed by narrow orthodoxies on teachers’ capacities to adopt imaginative, problem solving approaches to teaching in the practical situation.’’ (Macleod and Golby, 2003, p. 345). By definition, a specified curriculum does limit teachers in terms of what they can teach but it does not necessarily constrict teachers to a specific method of teaching. On the other hand, orthodoxies (the teaching methods taught in teachers’ college) do limit future-teachers abilities but still show evidence of being the significantly effective on students. For example, according behavioural learning theory, teaching should be based on reinforcement of positive behaviour through rewards thus teachers would be much more fit if they were instructed to chunk assignments and give regular encouraging feedback to student (Syomwene, Kitainge, & Mwaka, 2013). Shiundu and Omulando have supported this theory in 1992 as they noted that students reciprocate and learn much better through reinforcement from teachers (Syomwene,