Unequal inclusion: Experiences and meanings of school segmentation in Mexico

International Journal of Educational Development 45 (2015) 152–160

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Educational Development journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedudev

Unequal inclusion: Experiences and meanings of school segmentation in Mexico Gonzalo A. Saravı´ Center for Research and Graduate Studies in Social Anthropology (CIESAS), Jua´rez 87, Tlalpan CP 14000, Me´xico, DF, Mexico

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history: Received 6 May 2015 Received in revised form 1 September 2015 Accepted 29 September 2015

Inequality seems to be endemic in Mexico. After a decade of moderate economic growth and improvements in some social indicators, inequality remains extremely high. In a context of contradictory trends, a new model of ‘unequal inclusion’ is emerging. Access to education in Mexico has increased in the last decades, but, simultaneously, education has experienced a deep segmentation between private schools for privileged students and public schools for popular sectors. This segmentation affects students’ performance, but it has also consequences on the socialization and subjectivization processes. The analysis focuses on this underestimated effect of school segmentation examining the experiences and meanings of education among students from upper and lower social classes. Data come from qualitative fieldwork, interviews and focus groups with rich and poor students in Mexico City. ß 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Inequality Social class Social and cultural reproduction Latin America School segmentation

1. Introduction Social inequality is an endemic problem in Mexico as well as in most Latin American countries. During the second half of the twenty century the region experienced several political and economic crisis, but in the long term improvements in social wellbeing were reached: life expectancy grew, infant and maternal mortality decreased, basic education was expanded, and other social rights were extended among middle social classes (CEPAL, 2007). After two decades (1980s and 1990s) of deep neoliberal policies that increased vulnerability and social exclusion, the starting years of the 21st century brought a new boost in social development: positive trends are observed in health coverage, poverty reduction, expansion of education, levels of employment, and growth of middle classes. But, in spite of recent good news, Latin America still has the highest level of social inequality in the world (ECLA, 2010). Mexico is a paradigmatic case: almost half of its population lives in poverty (48.5%), the Gini Index of income inequality is 0.48, well above the OECD average of 0.33, and the average income of the richest 10% of the population is 27 times higher than that of the poorest 10% (the average ratio in OECD countries is 9 to 1) (OECD, 2011). The paradox of social improvements and persistent inequality is particularly evident in the field of education. In Mexico between 1990 and 2010, basic education coverage became almost universal,

E-mail address: [email protected]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2015.09.013 0738-0593/ß 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

and the average years of schooling of young people, aged 25–29, increased from 7.9 to 10.2 (Population Census, 1990 and 2010). In addition, several constitutional reforms extended compulsory education; most recently, in 2011, making it compulsory until grade 12. But education has also experienced a deep segmentation, mainly by class and ethnicity. In recent years, the Economic Commission for Latin America and several independent studies highlighted this new process of school segmentation and its potential consequences in terms of new forms of educational inequality (CEPAL, 2007; ECLA, 2010; Pereyra, 2009; Tiramonti, 2004; Freitas Resende et al., 2011; Garcı´a Villegas and Quiroz Lo´pez, 2011). Most of these studies analyze the segregation of poor and upper middle class students in public and private schools with deep contrast in pedagogical strategies and resources, educational infrastructure, pupils’ performance, or educational achievement in international tests like PISA. The consequences of this new type of school segmentation, however, exceed educational inequality. School is much more than a social institution of learning and knowledge transmission between generations; it is also a key institutional space of formal and informal socialization and subjectivization. Social practices and norms, perceptions and expectations, meanings and cultural repertoires are produced and reproduced in the social world of school. In this sense, school segmentation by social class has a critical societal effect: it contributes to a progressive distancing and socio-cultural isolation of social classes, a process I name social fragmentation.

G.A. Saravı´ / International Journal of Educational Development 45 (2015) 152–160

The purpose of this article is to explore this segmentation between privileged and popular urban students in contemporary Mexico. The analysis moves beyond objective (and quantitative) aspects of school segmentation such as infrastructure, human resources, or educational attainment. It focuses on some sociocultural dimensions of this process, exploring two specific aspects: the segmentation of ‘‘experiences’’ and ‘‘meanings’’ of education. I think this exploratory study could be a significant contribution to understand the social consequences of a school divide based on class inequality, and at the same time be important to design a new wave of policies for a real inclusion and a more cohesive society. 2. Methodology This article is based on results from an extensive research with university students from lower and upper middle social classes. The project was carried out between 2009 and 2013 in four different universities: two public schools located in the eastern outskirts of Mexico City and two private schools located in the northwest of the same city; it is worth to mention that these locations match with patterns of spatial segregation in Mexico City: the east side concentrates the poorest districts and the northwest the most exclusive residential areas (Aguilar and Mateos, 2011; Bayo´n and Saravı´, 2013). Moreover, these universities are socially identified as popular and elite schools in the local social milieu, respectively. The private universities selected for this study are among the most expensive in Mexico, with tuition fees between 10,000 and 15,000 dollars per academic year (the average family income of the lowest 60% of the total population in the income distribution structure, is around 5800 dollars per year) and both belong to different Catholic Congregations. In contrast, both public universities are completely free and one of them was created recently by the local government of Mexico City with the explicit purpose of providing high education opportunities for the lower social classes. Location and class were the main reasons to select these two pair of universities in order to explore experiences and meanings in differentiated ‘‘circuits of schooling’’ (Ball et al., 1995). Fieldwork involved observation in all four settings, two focus groups with both groups of students, and 27 individual in-depth interviews; in total 39 male and female students have been directly involved in this study. Table 1 contains an overview of the main characteristics of the 39 participants. This sample was theoretically constructed (Taylor and Bogdan, 1998) looking for young people from privileged and popular family background. I conducted personally all the interviews and focus groups. Participants were previously unknown by the researcher and were contacted through key informants from each university. All the interviews and focus groups were taped, transcribed, and analyzed with the N*Vivo software for qualitative research. This information was complemented with a brief questionnaire completed by each student with information about themselves and their families. Complementarily, as most young people from lower social classes leave the school early in life, I draw on some data from a previous research project (Saravı´, 2009) with poor young people living in the same east side of the city but with much lower levels of education (most of them with incomplete high school). The interviews were based on a semi-structured guide, with several open questions about the experiences and meanings of inequality in education (as well as in the sphere of consumption and the city) and the educational trajectory of participants. Both focus groups had a ‘‘low-moderator-involvement’’ and were organized around five different topics; every participant chose a card with a topic and moderated the discussion about it. Each card had an open question or a provocative statement regarding the same topics of the

153

Table 1 Basic socio-demographic characteristics of respondents. Code

Name

University

Gender

Age

Social Class

A-01 A-01 A-02 A-02 A-03 A-04 A-05 A-06 A-07 A-08 A-09 A-10 A-11 A-12 A-13 GF-A-01 GF-A-01 GF-A-01 GF-A-01 GF-A-01 E-B-01 E-B-02 E-B-03 E-B-04 E-B-05 E-B-06 E-B-07 E-B-08 E-B-09 E-B-10 E-B-11 E-B-12 GF-B-01 GF-B-01 GF-B-01 GF-B-01 GF-B-01 GF-B-01 GF-B-01

Arturo Juliana Juan Luis Gerardo Andre´s Alejandra Leo Camila Alejandra Fernando Andrea Sofı´a Esteban Martı´n Mariana Renata Gael Pablo Julia´n Valentina Emiliano Jacqueline Ramo´n Sebastia´n Paola Marisol Jose´ Luis Rafael Braian Abril Luis Jennifer Itzel Carlos Angel Guadalupe Melina Daniela Santiago

Elite Elite Elite Elite Elite Elite Elite Elite Elite Elite Elite Elite Elite Elite Elite Elite Elite Elite Elite Elite Popular Popular Popular Popular Popular Popular Popular Popular Popular Popular Popular Popular Popular Popular Popular Popular Popular Popular Popular

Male Female Male Male Male Female Male Female Female Male Female Female Male Male Female Female Male Male Male Female Male Female Male Male Female Female Male Male Male Female Male Female Female Male Male Female Female Female Male

20 22 26 19 26 21 25 23 23 24 28 19 19 20 23 19 20 18 20 21 26 21 19 26 21 23 26 21 21 24 22 24 20 21 25 20 25 21 21

Upper-Middle Class Upper-Middle Class Upper Class Upper Class Upper-Middle Class Middle Class Upper-Middle Class Upper-Middle Class Upper Class Upper-Middle Class Middle Class Upper Class Upper-Middle Class Upper Class Upper Class Upper-Middle Class Upper Class Upper Class Upper-Middle Class Upper Class Lower-Middle Class Middle Class Lower-Middle Class Lower-Middle Class Lower Class Lower-Middle Class Middle Class Lower_Middle Class Lower_Middle Class Lower Class Lower Class Middle Class Lower-Middle Class Lower-Middle Class Lower Class Lower-Middle Class Lower-Middle Class Lower-Middle Class Middle Class

Note: Social Class’categories combine education and occupation of both parents.

interviews. The real names of the participants and universities were replaced in order to preserve their anonymity. 3. Literature review The relationship between education and inequality is a classic debate in the fields of education and development studies. There are different perspectives about this relationship, some of them with opposite positions. Education can be seen either as a key factor of social development, economic wellbeing, and equal opportunity or as a core mechanism of reproduction of social inequality and stratification. In general terms, the former approach is the dominant perspective in the public opinion and the social policy arena. As Dubet (2001) has pointed out, in societies based on individual principles like freedom, responsibility, and personal effort, inequality resulting from the rules of meritocracy is socially accepted and legitimated. The school itself is conceived as a meritocratic institution, but education also represents one of the most important assets to play the game of meritocracy. Both individuals and countries need human capital in order to compete and succeed in local and global markets. As Tarabini (2010: 204) has pointed out, ‘‘education has played a crucial role in the global agenda for development since the 1990s; international bodies, northern and southern governments and even non-governmental organizations agree on emphasizing the virtues of educational investment as a key strategy in the fight against poverty and

154

G.A. Saravı´/ International Journal of Educational Development 45 (2015) 152–160

achieving development.’’ Following this argument, the expansion of education and the inclusion of the most disadvantaged sectors of the population has become the main strategy to promote equality (or fair inequality) in modern societies. This has been the dominant discourse in Mexico, as well as in the rest of Latin America. Efforts have been focused on expanding the educational coverage, incrementing the years of education, and increasing the percentage of the population with higher educational credentials. Social policies, not only education policies, have been also influenced by this paradigm. Most of the conditionalcash-transfer (CCT) social programs to reduce poverty in Latin America, for instance, are based on these meritocratic and human capital assumptions. ‘‘Oportunidades’’ (recently renamed ‘‘Prospera’’), the star social program against poverty in Mexico (with more than 6 millions families registered), transfers monthly payments of cash money to poor households under the condition of sending their children to school (among other conditions). The optimistic expectations behind the program are based on the idea that educational inclusion by itself means equal opportunity. These assumptions, however, have been confronted by several empirical studies. In Latin America, for instance, Reimers et al. (2006) question the educational efficiency of CCT programs, and other empirical studies show the persistence of inequality in spite of educational expansion (Reimers, 2000; ECLA, 2010; Trucco, 2014). These studies do not reject the assumptions of meritocracy and human capital approaches but show the actual weaknesses of this model. In contexts of deep and persistent social inequality, the school alone is unable to succeed in its original purpose (Bonal, 2007). Socio-economic, as well as cultural resources of children, families, and communities have a real impact on school access, attendance and performance. From the landmark study of Coleman and colleagues, almost fifty years ago (1966), it is known among sociologists that family background variables have strong effects on students’ performance at school. More recently, PISA evaluations came to confirm this association around the world, and particularly in developing countries. In general terms, we have today enough evidence showing that previous disadvantages undermine the value of educational expansion as a mechanism for fighting inequality. Meritocracy does not work in the real world of societies with historically strong inequalities (see McNamee and Miller, 2004). These studies make clear that we need to reduce previous structural disadvantages, in order to have an educational system favoring equal opportunity. Grounded in this type of empirical evidence but supported in a more complex theoretical framework, the reproductionist perspective represents a clear rupture with the meritocratic approach. Rather than the cornerstone of equal opportunities, the education system is conceived as a key mechanism of reproduction of social inequality. Several paramount researches could be mentioned as the foundations of the reproduction theories; among them Bowles & Gintis’s Schooling in Capitalist America (1976), Bourdieu & Passeron’s Reproduction in Education, Society, and Culture (1970), Willis’s Learning to Labor (1977), and Bernstein’s Toward a Theory of Educational Transmission (1974). The main argument of this perspective is that ‘‘schools are not exceptional institutions promoting equality of opportunity, instead they reinforce the inequalities of social structure and cultural order found in a given country’’ (Collins, 2009). The economic and language mechanisms of inequality reproduction were the main concern for Bowless & Gintis and Bernstein, respectively (see Mehan, 1992); but the studies of Willis and Bourdieu & Passeron focused on the social and cultural dimensions of class in which we are more interested. According to Willis, working-class youth develops a school counter-culture shaped by their class experiences, which is, in

some way, a mechanism of cultural resistance to capitalist oppression. The (unexpected) consequence of this cultural resistance against school, however, is the early exclusion of these young people from the formal education path. As a consequence, they are pushed into the labor market with very low qualifications and ready to get manual and low paid working-class jobs. Although this is an extreme simplification of Willis’s argument, the main idea is that schooling works as a silent and anonymous reproduction process: education is open and offered to everybody, but working class students do not effort enough to continue in this path. Bourdieu and Passeron develop a similar argument in Les Heritiers (1964), but it is applied to the educational success of privileged youth. Based on university students, the authors show that school rewards those capitals proper of privileged classes. In this sense, students from upper social class families already have (embodied) the social and cultural capitals needed to succeed at school. Once again, the main idea behind the argument of Bourdieu and Passeron (oversimplified here) is that this process seems to be a natural and smooth process: privileged young people get privileged jobs because they complete and succeed in their educational careers. Both researches, focusing on young people from opposite ends of the social structure, see the school as an institutionalized mechanism of reproducing inequality. This explanation, however, could be confronted with empirical evidence showing the increasing access of lower social classes to education. As I have already mentioned, school attendance and years of schooling increased in Latin America and Mexico in the last decades. Governments also implemented active policies of educational inclusion to reach marginalized children and youngsters (Azaola, 2012). From 1990 to 2010, for instance, the rate of school attendance in Mexico rises from 79% to 92% among children (12– 14 years old), and from 41% to 57% among adolescents (15–19 years old) (Population Census 1990 and 2010). The coverage of basic education (9 grades) is almost universal, and high school coverage is around 60%. In other words, the inclusion of previously excluded sectors seems to invalidate the reproduction paradigm: a significant proportion of young people from lower social classes reach higher educational credentials. Progress in access to education, however, has not removed the disadvantages behind exclusion. The effects of socioeconomic family background conditions on school performance did not disappear. And the reproduction of inequality is still operating through the formal education system, but in a different way. We have nowadays a new type of school segmentation: the current divide is not (only) between those ‘‘in’’ and ‘‘out’’ of school, but between students attending different schools or, in Ball and colleagues’ words, differentiated circuits of schooling. This means that we face the risk of a model of educational inclusion with inequality reproduction. We do not have anymore a unique school; therefore, today the value and efficacy of educational inclusion by itself is questioned and sometimes undermined. On the one hand, educational inclusion by itself does not mean equal opportunity because there is an unequal inclusion in different school worlds; on the other hand, the reproduction and legitimation of social inequality do not operate through exclusion (alone), but through the inclusion of children from different backgrounds in different school worlds. A new wave of the reproductionist paradigm, inspired in Bourdieu’s work, has recently explored this process of inclusion with inequality (Ball et al., 1996; Reay, 2004). Economic aspects of class still have a significant impact on inequality reproduction through education. In the past (but still now in some levels) school dropout and early exclusion from education were associated with poverty and deprivation; in present days, economic capital allows

G.A. Saravı´ / International Journal of Educational Development 45 (2015) 152–160

families enhance their children’ performance and achievement through the access to a growing educational market. This includes (as we will seen) a private sector of schools and a complementary educational market of multiple extracurricular activities and experiences. As Ball has pointed out, ‘‘in the current context of education, academic capital is guaranteed by a combination of transmissions at school, in the family and those ‘‘bought in’’ from the market, access to which simply and fundamentally depends upon the amount of economic capital available to the family’’ (Ball, 2010: 159). But the most relevant process of class inequality reproduction is taking place inside the educational system itself. Mainly in the U.S. and the U.K., but also in several continental European countries, there is a growing literature on the effects of parents’ school choice on inequality (van Zanten and Kosunen, 2013). Social and cultural dimensions of class become the cornerstone of this process of school choice and the consequent process of school segmentation by class. Ball et al. (1995), for instance, identifies the emergence of differentiated and unequal circuits of schooling, as a result of an interwoven process of school choice, social class, and cultural capital. Ball and his colleagues have studied how social classes are oriented materially and culturally differently toward the education markets, which results in differentiated circuits of schooling. The school choice of working class families tend to be a contingent and practical decision, subordinated to the constraints of family, locality, and necessity; in the case of middle and upper middle classes the decision is oriented by the academic and social prestige of schools, becoming a clear strategy to reproduce their privileged social position and close off opportunities to the lower classes (Ball et al., 1995). In similar terms, Reay (2004) has also explored practices of social exclusion and social exclusivity among middle and upper middle classes in the process of educational choice. The marketization of schools through school selection intensifies a process of social and class segregation: middle and upper middle class families choose the more prestigious and successful schools, while working class children became clustered in demonized and less successful schools (Reay, 2004). These studies are based on national context where a marketization process of education is taking place, but where public education is still dominant. In this sense, although circuits of schooling and school choice could involve the private sector, they are mainly phenomenon of an extended public education system. In Mexico, as in most Latin America, this is not the case. One of the most prominent features of school segmentation and inequality reproduction in the region is the divide between public and private schools (CEPAL, 2007; Pereyra, 2009). Middle social classes migrated from the public to the private sector, and upper middle classes were traditionally clustered in private schools. In Latin America 17% of primary students attends private schools, but around 66% of them belong to the richest 30% of the population (70–100th percentile of the family income distribution). Mexico, Brazil and Argentina are the three Latin American countries with the widest socio-economic gap between public and private schools (Pereyra, 2009). The socio-economic composition of schools has a deep effect on educational achievement; and it is also positively associated with the infrastructure and resources of schools. Students from better off families, with significant stocks of cultural capital, tend to be concentrated in the same private schools, with the best teaching conditions, and with higher levels of educational achievement; on the other side, students from lower socio-economic background, attend public schools with precarious infrastructure, limited pedagogical resources, and dramatically poor educational outcomes (Saravı´, 2015) Socioeconomic family background influences educational success but, in Latin America, schooling often reinforces its effects.

155

The objective and quantitative aspects of school segmentation are relevant but they are not the only factors associated with inequality. As Chattopadhay (2014: 67) has observed ‘‘much of the scholarship in international educational development continues to focus on parameters of cognitive outcomes of learners such as years of schooling, graduation rates, and learning achievements.’’ In contrast, other social and cultural dimensions and abilities have been underestimated, even though socialization aspects of education have a significant impact in reproducing social inequalities. 3.1. The segmentation of school experiences School experience refers to the socialization and subjectivization processes linked to the school. Since long time ago, sociologists have characterized the school as one of the main institutions in these two processes. The school experience does not refer only to vertical relations between the institution and the individuals, but also to horizontal social processes and relationships rooted in the school with peers, staff, professors and other adults. It implies the construction of specific patterns of sociability and interaction, perceptions and cultural frameworks, identities and life styles. The school experience is critical in the construction of a ‘‘life world’’. It is no longer a homogeneous and universalizing experience. The school does not pretend to build anymore the subject and the space of common membership; in contrast, it reproduces the own subject and space of each social segment of society. There is a reciprocal influence between the socio-economic characteristics and family habitus and the institutional habitus of schools (Ball et al., 2002). As a result, we have now multiple school experiences contributing to social closure and distancing between social classes. One of the most significant differences between the school experience of students from privileged and popular classes in Mexico is its place in the life experience: the school has an allencompassing nature, touching every aspect of the social experience of privileged children and youth, but it is a narrow experience, a very limited dimension of the whole social experience among students from popular sectors. This is why we can name these two experiences as: the-total-school and the-minimum-school. Much of everyday life of privileged students takes place at school or is organized around school activities. They usually attend small private schools; always bilingual and, sometimes, religious. The school building is much more than just a place to study; it is a place of intense social interaction and socialization, extracurricular activities, identity formation, lifestyle models, and even consumption. Esteban, a freshman in a private university located in an exclusive area of Mexico City, told me during his interview: ‘‘Oh, yea, yea, we spend a lot of time at school. In fact, we don’t have any reason to go out, because we have everything here’’ (Esteban, 19, upper-middle class). This total experience of the school is linked with two features of contemporary sociability in Latin American cities: urban insecurity and social homogeneity. The upper-middle classes have minimized their presence in open public spaces and even the use of the city itself as a consequence of urban violence and crime, and also due to strong feelings of insecurity and fear toward the city and the ‘‘others’’ (Low, 2005; Caldeira, 2001; Kessler, 2009). Gated communities and shopping centers proliferated during the last decades recreating quasi-public spaces secure and socially homogeneous; the private schools are also part of this process of social isolation of the upper-middle classes. Privileged children and youngsters find in the school a place free of the risks of the city and the strangers. But this limits their encounters with ‘‘others’’ and the practice of citizenship.

156

G.A. Saravı´/ International Journal of Educational Development 45 (2015) 152–160

Social homogeneity is a second prominent feature of this space. Students come from similar socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds and share the same lifestyles. They live in similar neighborhoods, visit the same restaurants, shopping centers, and clubs; travel abroad frequently, and most of them have their own car and some basic gadgets like Macs and I-Phones. These students come from a small group of schools, have the same look, and speak and dress in a similar way. Moreover, social relationships, contacts and practices extend over time and space. Temporally, the same relationships follow them throughout their educational careers, from early childhood to youth, and some times they continue during adulthood. Spatially, they spread in different social settings: classmates are also fellows in the same club, neighbors in the same gated community, or friends of other friends. Social homogeneity is not a casual result, but the consequence of a class driven process of school choice. As Ball et al. (2002) observe, in family decisions about schools is embodied the social structure; it can be more or less conscious but the class condition is operating this process of school choice. In Mexico, as in most Latin American countries, the distinction between public and private schools is a primary classification of the cognitive structure of choice among privileged families. For them public schools are simply unthinkable, out of their class expectations and their cultural frameworks. Talking with Andre´s about this, he told me: Sincerely, I ever thought in public schools, they never were an option or something like that; my family had always a good socio economic condition, and therefore the idea was always a private school Andre´s, 26, upper-middle class After that I asked him if private schools were better than public schools, and his answer was: ‘‘look, the main reason was English, my parents looked for a bilingual school’’. Bilingual teaching becomes a key marker in school choice; beyond the academic relevance of English, it is a marker of class distinction and prestige. It is also an indicator of the school atmosphere and the community -that is, the ‘‘kind of people’’ you can find there. Bilingual or bicultural teaching is a marker of a ‘‘right place’’ for privilege families, a place with people ‘‘like me’’ (Ball et al., 1996). In this sense, selecting bilingual schools becomes not only a practice of social exclusivity but also of social exclusion (Reay, 2004): progressively these schools reject not-bilingual students. The following extract from a focus group in a private and exclusive university make clear this class orientation in the school choice process. Pablo: I am not stereotyping, but I think you look for a place with people close to you, with people like you, like this environment. Valentina: Oh yes, I think, for instance, that the UNAM (the public national university) is academically good, but I have a friend studying there and he doesn’t have any social life, he doesn’t have any friends, nothing, because people there has a different lifestyle; they live in very different worlds. I don’t want to be arrogant, but the truth is that when I chose this university, I was looking for a place in which I feel comfortable, according to my life style Pablo, 18, and Valentina 21, both upper class The result of this explicit process of school choice is a welldelimited and cohesive circuit of schooling. Students from these different schools are friends, they go to the same parties, they live in similar neighborhoods, and then they meet in the same universities. ‘‘Here everybody arrives in a same way, from the same schools and since the kinder’’, Fernando says about the students in his university, ‘‘so, when you arrive here, everybody already has their social circles, very closed circles; most of them come from El

Rosedal, El Cumbres, El Vista Hermosa [exclusive high-schools]’’. Social homogeneity combined with social closure produces a unique and thick experience. This compact and isolated experience is associated with an ‘‘exclusive lifestyle’’, and is a significant contribution to the construction of a privileged elite. Yes, it was a bilingual school. I was there all my life. . . you know, I didn’t know anything beyond that. Did you spend all your childhood and adolescence in the same place? Yes, yes I did. . . and always with the same people, I mean, some left, others came, but the same kind of people, it was always the same circle Camila, 23, upper-middle class In contrast, the school has a limited and subordinated place in the social experience of students from popular sectors. The school loses centrality throughout the educational career, it gradually becomes a partial experience, and finally a completely minor aspect of life experience. This limitation has spatial and temporal dimensions, too. Spatially, this experience is limited to what happen inside the school building. There is no extension of the school experience over other social spaces beyond the school itself. In some way, it is an autonomous experience, independent and without any connection with other social spaces like the family, the neighborhood, or other extra-curricular activities. As a consequence, the ‘‘minimum-school’’ creates a social network much less intense and multiplex than the ‘‘total-school’’ does. In fact, working-class students have more spaces of social integration; but this positive aspect, however, implies weaker social ties with the school. The link school-student is made of dyadic relationships disconnected from any other social network. In this sense, while school dropout means a severe condition of social isolation for privileged students, it does not have the same effect for students coming from lower social classes with alternative spaces of social integration. At the same time, this school experience is more open and sensitive to external factors, activities and relationships. It is just one experience among others: students often work, and have family compromises or domestic responsibilities; moreover, they share education with other independent spaces of socialization and interaction (neighborhood, family, workplace, peer groups, etc.). Therefore the school bond is weak and could be easily cut as a result of minor incidents taking place outside the school itself. A simple disease, a wrong signature or a misspelled address on a certificate, a discussion with the boyfriend, or the lack of ten pesos to pay the bus, can trigger a temporary or permanent exit from school. The link with education is highly vulnerable to multiple external factors. I was in third semester and one day I said ‘‘I do not want to study anymore, and I left the school for one semester. How old were you? I was 16. . . I guess. It was just for six months the first time. After that, I came back, but then I got sick, and I left again. . . I was in fifth semester. I dropped out for one year that time, and during that year I was looking for a job. Marisol, 23, lower-middle class The ‘‘minimum-school’’ also represents a limited experience in temporal terms, both in everyday life and in life course. On the one hand, the school experience takes only a few hours a day; housing conditions, family conflicts, labor activities or domestic work, peer groups and family priorities, reduce the opportunities and time for school. On the other hand, the school becomes less and less important after basic education; as Claudia told me, ‘‘the school didn’t call any more my attention’’, she was 16, ‘‘I was with my husband, and I wanted to spend more time with him’’; similarly, Axel says ‘‘I left the school basically ‘cause I didn’t want to go, it didn’t like me, I just wanted to be with my friends’’, and after that,

G.A. Saravı´ / International Journal of Educational Development 45 (2015) 152–160

at age 15, he crossed illegally to the US looking for a job and ‘‘something new’’ (Claudia, 19, and Alex, 18, lower class). Expectations about the benefits of education are always limited, but they become even lower during adolescence and youth. After middle school, education begins to compete with other spaces of integration and recognition: a new family, the labor market, the ‘‘adventure’’ and ‘‘opportunities’’ of international migration, and, in some contexts, the involvement in gangs or criminal activities. School becomes less attractive in front of alternative patterns of transition to adulthood –in many cases, more familiar and socially recognized than education. Social homogeneity is also a feature of the ‘‘minimum school’’, but in contrast with the ‘‘total school’’, in this case it is not the result of an explicit and strategic process of school choice. Rather, it is a by-product of limited and constrained processes of school choice. As Ball et al. (1995) have observed, options and decisions about school among popular sectors are often subordinated to consideration of the constraints of family and locality. As a consequence, social isolation and homogeneity of lower class students at school, become a mirror of the prevalent patterns of spatial segregation. I think a lot of people come to this kind of schools because of they are the last option. This one, for instance, is full of people coming for that reason, people that takes it as the last one, as the last chance. And. . . another characteristic I have observed is that most of the students here are from the state of Mexico, and very few from the city. Everybody come from Chalco, El Rosario, Texcoco [the periphery of Me´xico City], that type of places, but only a few of them live in the Federal District. Daniela, 21, lower-middle class Daniela is talking about the social composition of the intakes in her university. She makes clear the association between the place of residence and the school, but she also makes evident another limitation in the process of school choice: option and acceptance. In effect, the circuit of the minimum school is also conditioned by a process of official school assignation (after basic education). This is a new contribution to the stigmatization and devaluation of schools attended by popular sectors. Contrasts between these two models of school experiences are also reproduced in contrasting school trajectories. Privileged and disadvantaged students offer different biographies for education. Educational trajectories among popular sectors tend to be intermittent and highly fractured. Residential changes, economic and labor problems, health issues, household readjustments, and family conflicts are frequent factors disrupting the educational career. The school trajectory, therefore, presents numerous ‘‘entries’’ and ‘‘exits’’, forwards and backwards, changes from one school to another, and leaps between different modalities of education. These interruptions and changes gradually undermine even more the link with school. Students from privileged sectors also share a similar educational pattern, but their trajectories are characterized by linearity and continuity. The school is socially recognized as the main and almost exclusive occupation during childhood, adolescence, and youth. Therefore, other activities, concerns, or even family decisions are subordinated to school demands. Very often, the entire educational career, from kinder to high school, takes place in the same school, with the same classmates, the same staff, and the same safety environment. The only disruption in these smooth trajectories is a one-year experience abroad. This has become a common experience, integrated to the ‘‘normal’’ educational trajectory of privileged students. It usually takes place during secondary school or after finishing high school, and it is understood as an important process of informal training in a global world.

157

These contrasting experiences are consistent with the operation of differentiated and class-specific ‘‘circuits of schooling’’ in Me´xico, and probably in most Latin American countries. There are of course internal differences (and circuits), but private and public schools have become a first great divide associated with different school experiences, educational trajectories, and the social and cultural composition of the student body. The following section goes a step forward to explore a symbolic dimension of differentiation between these circuits of schooling. 3.2. The class meanings of school In a contemporary context of des-institutionalization (Touraine, 2000; McDonald, 1999), traditional institutions lose capacity to call the subject. Some institutions, like the school, have now a limited power of vertical socialization and subjectivization; rather, they become spaces or containers of horizontal socialization and interaction. In this sense, the school itself does not provide anymore the meanings of school; now the students are the subjects producing and demanding meanings for the school. This is why Dubet and Martuccelli (2000) point out that the important question no longer is about the motivations of students, but the relevant issue today is how students construct the meaning of their studies. Find an answer is not easy because of schools also play an active role in meaning construction. Public and private schools respond to students’ demands producing and reproducing different meanings, most of them with a flavor of class distinction (i.e. ‘‘the school for the poor’’ or ‘‘the school for the elites’’). The education system follows the model of the market, where preferences of consumers are embedded in social inequalities, and the market responds to these preferences strengthening inequality. The ‘‘total-school’’ and the ‘‘minimum-school’’ are paradigmatic examples of a similar segmentation in the field of education; each model responds to demands from different kinds of students, (re)producing a class segmentation of the meanings of education. As Ball et al. (2002) observed, this is a ‘‘class matching’’ process between students and schools. On the one hand, most students disregard the traditional motivations associated with the schooling discourse. Economic progress, upward social mobility, vocational interests, making money or getting a good job, are not popular reasons to study, indeed. All or some of them were common inter-class motivations to attend school in the past, or were behind the decision to follow an educational career. However, the official discourse about the benefits of education has been today undermined by the persistence of structural conditions of social inequality, and, therefore, those motivations have been replaced either by lack of interest in education or by individual demands less associated with economic aspects. On the other hand, apathy and boredom are dominant feelings among students from both school models. Nevertheless, this aspect associated with the ‘‘non-sense’’ of school, assumes different connotations in each case: an indifferent boredom dominates the ‘‘minimum-school’’, and a committed boredom the ‘‘total-school’’. Differences between these two types of feelings represent an open door to explore the contrasting meanings and expectations attached to education in both contexts. The ‘‘indifferent boredom’’ is associated with a progressive lack of interest in education. In some way, it anticipates early school dropout. As we have seen before, several factors gradually undermine the ties with the school. Beyond the socio-economic vulnerability of children from popular classes, other aspects are also important. The informal labor market, for instance, competes against the school, because of it offers an important resource for teenagers: money. Incomes from the informal economy can be low,

158

G.A. Saravı´/ International Journal of Educational Development 45 (2015) 152–160

but any amount of money is really appreciated by poor youngsters, particularly males. The labor market is not the only competitor for education. The category of ‘‘student’’ is a weak and unclear source of identity for young people from popular sectors; the labor but also the family, the street gangs, or the migration can be more appealing spaces than the school for social integration, identity construction, and social recognition. ?

Why did you leave school? Well. . . I liked the money. . . I mean, I was working before that, I was working and studying, but then, when I left the school, I started to work every day, and so I earned more money. So I started to see life in a different way. . . because I had more money and so I felt important. Francisco, 18, lower class

Moreover, the educational career is too long and insecure for vulnerable youth. The benefits of education can be only seen in the long term, after several years of study. But this long process is full of risks for young people from popular classes. This is an issue of ‘‘class horizons’’; working class families and students tend to based their decisions, practices and, even biographies, in short term horizons, without speculations about the future (Ball et al., 1995). In a context of constraints and limitations, it is not clear for them that they will be able to complete long-term project like a university degree. This uncertainty undermines even more the traditional reasons for studying, and promotes early school leaving in order to avoid ‘‘time waste’’ at school. The National Youth Survey (ENJ, 2005) showed that the relationship between more education and better labor opportunities among youth is really weak: only 38% think education is useful to earn more money and 44% to get a job; but these percentages are even lower among young people from lower and lower middle social classes; they fall down to 21% and 25%, respectively. Pereira Leao has observed a similar attitude toward education among poor Brazilian youth; according to him, there is a ‘‘conflict between the social discourse about the value of education divulged by the media, by educators and politicians, and the daily experience of a meaningless and purposeless schooling’’ (2006: 38). Boredom and apathy are also common feelings among young students from the ‘‘total-school’’. Esteban says: ‘‘I was sick of school. I wanted to drop, I was too boring.’’ After that, I asked him, what did he feel at that moment: Boredom; I was boring because everyday was the same. . . the same teachers, the same classmates, the same rutine. . . so I went to the classroom, I sat there, and I didn’t do anything. Were you depressed or sad? No, I don’t. . . I was boring, deeply boring. . . so boring that I didn’t care the school. Esteban, 19, upper-middle class In this social context, however, school attendance is conceived as an obligation of this stage of life. In fact, the university degree represents the socially expected conclusion of this period of life. Again we can see this in terms of class horizons; upper middle classes are more likely to imagine their children, since early in life, at university (Ball et al., 1995). In this sense, even though traditional motivations have disappeared and the lack of interest seems to dominate, there is a committed boredom. The school becomes a boring obligation. ‘‘My parents always told me that they are professionals and we (as their children) have to surpass them. . .’’ (Leo, 25, middle class). The social enforcement of education avoids any possibility of early school leaving; families, peer groups, neighbors, among others, are agents of this social pressure reinforcing the inevitability of education during childhood and youth. As Ball and colleagues have noted, for these students ‘‘the decision to go to university is a non-decision’’ (2002: 57). Social expectations, however, are not the unique factor avoiding early schooling dropout. As we have seen before, the social

experience of privileged youngsters is strongly attached to the school experience; in fact, the school experience becomes a totalizing experience for them. The school can be boring and nonsense, but it is the only space of social integration, identity construction, and social recognition for privileged students. They do not have any other alternative channel of transition to adulthood. Education is also seen as a mean for something else: high school is boring but necessary to access university; undergraduate studies can be boring but required to get a job. In this sense, there is still a link between education and the labor market. This link, however, is not made of knowledge or vocation; schooling credentials and social networks built in school seem to be the most relevant asset. Of course, some specialized knowledge is needed for getting a job, as well as some personal interest for choosing a career, but the credential of a university degree becomes the key to jump to the labor market: on the one hand, because it marks the end of a life period as student (and young person) and, on the other hand, because it legitimizes the participation in the labor market. In both cases it is integrated as part of a ‘‘normal biography’’. Apathy is not everything; there is also space for new meanings associated with education, and particularly with high education. These meanings are self-constructed by students and assume a subjective character. Students from popular sectors see the access to university as a personal challenge. Undergraduate studies are beyond the social expectations of lower social classes, beyond their class horizons and frames of reference; the university is associated with middle and upper-middle classes. In this context, students from popular sectors, who were able to surpass boredom and continue in education, see their university experiences as a source of self-esteem and respect. In other words, the university represents, for students with low socioeconomic background, a proof of his or her personal effort and capacity to overcome structural barriers. The ‘‘minimum-school’’ becomes a mean of subjective recognition in a world of frustration. High school and university also represent a ‘‘different’’ space of sociability for unprivileged students. Different in respect of the social spaces of everyday life: the family, the neighborhood, the street, the workplace, the informal markets, etc. Students from popular sectors talk about university as a space to learn and practice ‘‘other kind’’ of social skills: speak in a different way, make use of ‘‘proper’’ words, have new topics of conversation, adopt new manners of interaction, meet other kind of people, share different interests. In other words, it becomes a source of cultural capital. Time ago I thought studying was important in order to have a certain quality of life, but now, I don’t think so; finishing a career doesn’t guarantee you anything... maybe you can find a job but maybe not. So, now, I say studying is important for knowing new things. It is useful for a lot of things; to be able to have a good conversation with some people, to learn something that you didn’t know, to meet people, yes, for that kind of things yes. But a value like ‘‘I study because I want to progress’’, no, I don’t think so anymore. Jacqueline, 21, lower class But at the same time, and this is a paradox of increasing mass education, these working class students have to deal with disqualifying and demonizing judgments about their schools and universities. Reay (2006: 295) has observed a similar case in the UK, were ‘‘the lack of positive images of the working class contribute to them being educationally disqualified and inadequately supported academically’’. The minimum-school (or the public school) is seen as ‘‘the school for the poor’’, conception that is assumed by teachers and staff, and even by students and their families. This assumption is embodied in practices and experiences that undermine the value and prestige of the educational path.

G.A. Saravı´ / International Journal of Educational Development 45 (2015) 152–160

Academic and normative requirements, for instance, are relaxed and reduced, what students see as a lack of compromise and interest; a symptom that this is not a real school, but a second-class school. Martin has studied in a ‘‘telesecundaria’’, which is a special educational strategy to reach poor rural and urban communities; during the interview he told me that students from ‘‘telesecundaria’’ were called ‘‘teleburros’’ (tele dumb), and then he added ‘‘I do not recommend to study there, you just get bad habits there’’. This internalized judgments devaluates the learning capacity of these students, the authenticity of their educational degrees, and discourages them to follow the educational path through a subtle message saying that school is not for them. Many youngsters told me they dropped out because ‘‘they were not good for school’’ or ‘‘they could not learn maths’’ or other discipline. ‘‘I have never been an excellent student, I have never been a student recognized for that’’, Karla says with some kind of resignation (Karla, 20, lower class). In other words, much of these working class students are aware of the stigmas and ‘‘attributive judgments’’ about their class condition and school options, which depreciate their own educational trajectories (Reay, 2004). The lack of institutional recognition and respect threaten students’ self-esteem and sometimes push them to look for alternative spaces of inclusion. Students from the ‘‘total-school’’ assign new meanings to education, too. These meanings have also a subjective component, independent of the educational process itself. According to privileged students, university studies provide social prestige, and this is one of the main values and meanings associated with access to high education. However, this prestige is not due to the professional credentials, the academic level or the prestige of professors; it is a social prestige self-reproduced, based on the elitist nature of this type of universities. The university prestige is mainly due to the prestige of the students (and their families), and these students gain prestige because they are studying in that university. Although this could be described as a self-referenced prestige, it becomes a critical symbolic capital in the labor market. In the public imagination, the ‘‘total school’’ is seen as ‘‘the school for the elites’’. An individualized attention, a student centered learning process, and an academic level of excellence is what teachers, staff, and families transmit to privileged students about their schools. ‘‘A professor told me’’, Esteban says, ‘‘the students of this type of universities are only the 3% of the total population, and this is the 3% supporting the whole population’’ (Esteban, 19, upper-middle class). Classifications and judgments depreciate the trajectories and schools of lower social classes, but at the same time overestimate and put in the top of the hierarchy the value of privileged schools and their students. As Esteban makes it clear, this is transmitted to the own students and internalized by them, what strengthens the distinction with ‘‘others’’, providing ‘‘cultural’’ reason of their privileged condition, and widening the fragmentation of society. In other words, this is a mechanism of symbolic reproduction of social inequality. The social prestige of the ‘‘total-school’’ has a strong relation with social capital. Privileged students see university as a place to create social capital from contacts and relationships with professors (successful professionals) and classmates (from rich and influential families) (Mora Salas and de Oliveira, 2012). Gerardo, for instance, a student of international relations in an exclusive private university, told me: ‘‘. . . some reports show that social relationships built in colleges like this, represent more than 60% or 70% of labor opportunities after graduation’’ (Gerardo, 19, upper class). Pablo emphasizes this same idea with a concrete example: ‘‘In this school you are constantly in touch with. . . let say the daughter of the secretary of education in one side of the table and the son of the CEO of PepsiCO or Bimbo, in the other side’’ (Pablo, 18, upper class). The construction of social capital becomes an important motivation for studying and a symbolic value of

159

higher education. Both prestige and social capital show that, as Reay has pointed out, ‘‘hierarchies of universities relate as much, if not more, to students’ class position rather than to quality of provision and teaching’’ (2004: 548). 4. Conclusions Important progresses in the expansion of education have been made in Me´xico during the last decades. But simultaneously, education is becoming more and more class-segmented. As Chattopadhay (2014) has stated, public and private schools represent two different educational realities in much of Latin America. The educational system offers today different social worlds for different social classes, what undermines the expectations of equal opportunity placed on educational inclusion. We experience a new process of school segmentation where the popular classes are now ‘‘excluded from within’’ (Duru-Bellat, 2000) or, in Reay’s words where they ‘‘have moved from a position of educational outsiders to a marginalized position of outsiders within’’ (2006: 295). In Me´xico as in most Latin American countries the private–public divide is a primary source of segmentation of education. I have focused on two specific and contrasting circuits in each sector; but even inside the public and private sectors it is possible to identify differentiated sub-circuits of schooling. That is, the segmentation explored here is also reproduced at lower scales. This new segmentation between the school of the poor and the school of the privileged goes beyond ‘‘objective’’ dimensions, such as infrastructure, resources, or quality of education. It also implies deep differences in students’ social experiences and meanings of education. Different type of educational patterns, expectations and values are produced and reproduced in each of these two types of schools. But also different kinds of social relationships, subjectivities, and non-academic abilities such as communication skills, confidence, or global knowledge are embodied in their students. The socialization and subjetivization of children and youth in worlds-apart has significant societal consequences in terms of fragmentation and social cohesion. The school-divide means much more than the segmentation of education and the persistence of exclusion – now from within; it means the construction of socially and culturally distant life worlds. Segmentation reinforces the isolation of social classes and, therefore, limits the opportunities of shared social experiences, contributing to undermine solidarity and a sense of a common membership in society. What is considered a ‘‘normal’’ or ‘‘natural’’ school trajectory or school expectations become class defined. But school segmentation also attempts against the interaction with ‘‘others’’ in a key period of the life course and the socialization process. ‘‘Others’’ become, since early in life, strangers and even subject of stigmatization and fear. As Ball has pointed out, the consequence is the exacerbation of ‘‘social segregation, divisions and problems, contributing to a decline in civil society, tolerance and trust, by changing or limiting the ways we relate together’’ (Ball, 2010: 163). It is clear that the expansion strategy has to be complemented with a new wave of measures and policies oriented to reduce segmentation. There is a long array of possible policies to be discussed, but this has not been the purpose of this article; I just want to call the attention of policy-makers on the importance of class segmentation; the expansion by itself is not enough to answer the demands for equal opportunity; in some way, as I hope to have shown, it could be a mechanism of unequal inclusion, contributing to a wider process of social fragmentation. It is apparent that without a significant reduction of socioeconomic inequality education alone is unable to reach a more equal society. Without serious and consistent social and economic policies to reduce the deep socio-economic gaps between social

G.A. Saravı´/ International Journal of Educational Development 45 (2015) 152–160

classes, the role and efforts of education to trigger social development will be constantly undermined. Education is still a key factor for development, but development is not only to fulfill the millennium goals, to have a population with higher educational credentials, or to have better statistics. Development means also to promote social justice and community cohesion. I think, education has much to do to reach these development objectives. References Aguilar, A., Mateos, P., 2011. Diferenciacio´n sociodemogra´fica del espacio urbano de la Ciudad de Me´xico. Revista EURE 37 (110), 5–30. Azaola, M.C., 2012. Revisiting Bourdieu: alternative educational systems in the light of the theory of social and cultural reproduction. Int. Stud. Sociol. Educ. 22 (2), 81–95. Ball, S., 2010. New class inequalities in education. Int. J. Sociol. Social Policy 30 (3/4), 155–166. Ball, S., Bowe, R., Gewirtz, S., 1995. Circuits of schooling: a sociological exploration of parental choice of school in social class contexts. Sociol. Rev. 43 (1), 52–78. Ball, S., Bowe, R., Gewirtz, S., 1996. School choice, social class and distinction: the realization of social advantage in education. J. Educ. Policy 11 (1), 89–112. Ball, S., Davies, J., David, M., Reay, D., 2002. Classification and Judgement: social class and the cognitive structures of choice of higher education. Br. J. Sociol. Educ. 23 (1), 51–72. Bayo´n, M., Saravı´, G., 2013. The cultural dimensions of urban fragmentation. Segregation, sociability and inequality in Mexico City. Latin Am. Perspect. 40 (2), 35–52. Bernstein, B., 1974. Class, Codes and Control: Vol. 3. Toward a Theory of Educational Transmissions, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London. Bonal, X., 2007. On global absences: reflections on the failings in the education and poverty relation in Latin America. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 27 (1), 86–100. Bourdieu, P., Passeron, J.C., 2003 [1964]. Los Herederos. Los Estudiantes y la Cultura. Siglo XXI, Buenos Aires. Bourdieu, P., Passeron, J.C., 1990 [1970]. Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. Sage, London. Bowles, S., Gintis, H., 2011 (1976). Schooling in Capitalist America. Haymarket Books, Chicago, IL. Caldeira, T., 2001. City of Walls. Crime, Segregation, and Citizenship in Sao Paulo. University of California Press, Los Angeles. CEPAL, 2007. Cohesio´n Social: Inclusio´n y Sentidos de Pertenencia en Ame´rica Latina y el Caribe. CEPAL, Santiago de Chile. Chattopadhay, T., 2014. School as a site of student social capital: an exploratory study from Brazil. Int. J. Educ. Dev. (34), 67–76. Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A., Weinfeld, F., York, R., 1966. Equality of Educational Opportunity. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Collins, J., 2009. Social reproduction in classrooms and schools. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. (38), 33–48. Dubet, F., 2001. As desigualdades multiplicadas. Rev. Bras. Educ. 17, 5–19. Dubet, F., Martuccelli, D., 2000. En Que´ Sociedad Vivimos. Losada, Buenos Aires. Duru-Bellat, M., 2000. Social inequality in the French education system: the join effect of individual and contextual factors. J. Educ. Policy 15 (1), 33–40. ECLA, 2010. Social Panorama of Latin America 2010. ECLA, Santiago de Chile. ENJ, 2005. Encuesta Nacional de Juventud. Instituto Mexicano de la Juventud, Mexico. Freitas Resende, T., Marques Nogueira, C., Nogueira, M., 2011. Escolha do establecimento de ensino e perfis familiares: uma faceta a mais das desigualdades escolares. Educ. Soc. 32 (117), 953–970.

Garcı´a Villegas, M., Quiroz Lo´pez, L., 2011. Apartheid educativo: educacio´n, desigualdad e inmovilidad social en Bogota´. Rev. Econ. Inst. 13 (25), 137–162. Kessler, G., 2009. El Sentimiento de Inseguridad. Siglo XXI, Buenos Aires. Low, S., 2005. Toward a theory of urban fragmentation: a cross-cultural analysis of fear, privatization, and the state. Cybergeo: Eur. J. Geogr.. Available from: http://cybergeo.revues.org/3207 (accessed 16.06.12). McDonald, K., 1999. Struggles for Subjectivity. Identity, Action and Youth Experience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. McNamee, S.J., Miller Jr., R.K., 2004. The Meritocracy Myth. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD. Mehan, H., 1992. Understanding inequality in schools: the contribution of interpretative studies. Sociol. Educ. 65 (1), 1–20. Mora Salas, M., de Oliveira, O., 2012. Las vicisitudes de la inclusio´n laboral en los albores del siglo XXI: trayectorias ocupacionales y desigualdades sociales entre jo´venes profesionistas mexicanos. Estud. Sociol. XXX (88), 3–43. OECD, 2011. Divided We Stand. Why Inequality Keeps Rising. OECD Publishing. www.oecd.org/els/social/inequality. Pereira Leao, G., 2006. Experiences of inequality: the meanings of schooling envisaged by poor youths. Educ. Pesqui. 32 (1), 31–48. Pereyra, A., 2009. La Fragmentacio´n de la Oferta Educativa: La Educacio´n Pu´blica vs. la Educacio´n Privada. Boletı´n No. 08. SITEAL, Buenos Aires. Available from: http://www.siteal.iipe-oei.org (accessed 25.08.14). Reay, D., 2004. Exclusivity, exclusion, and social class in urban education markets in the United Kingdom. Urban Educ. 39 (5), 537–560. Reay, D., 2006. The zombies stalking english schools: social class and educational inequality. Br. J. Educ. Stud. 54 (3), 288–307. Reimers, F. (Ed.), 2000. Unequal Schools, Unequal Chances: The Challenge to Equal Opportunity in the Americas. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Reimers, F., Da Silva, C., Trevino, E., 2006. Where is the ‘‘education’’ in conditional cash transfers in education? UIS Working Paper No. 4. UNESCO, Montreal. Saravı´, G., 2009. Transiciones Vulnerables. Juventud, Desigualdad y Exclusio´n en Me´xico. CIESAS, Mexico. Saravı´, G., 2015. Juventudes Fragmentadas. Socializacio´n, Clase y Cultura en la Construccio´n de la Desigualdad. FLACSO, Me´xico. Tarabini, A., 2010. Education and poverty in the global development agenda: emergence, evolution and consolidation. Int. J. Educ. Dev. (30), 204–212. Taylor, S., Bogdan, R., 1998. Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: A Guidebook and Resource. Wiley, New York, USA. Tiramonti, G. (Ed.), 2004. La Trama de la Desigualdad Educativa. Manantial, Buenos Aires. Touraine, A., 2000. Podremos Vivir Juntos? Iguales y Diferentes. F.C.E, Buenos Aires. Trucco, D., 2014. Educacio´n y Desigualdad en Ame´rica Latina. Serie Polı´ticas Sociales 200. CEPAL/Ministerios de Asuntos Exteriores de Noruega, Santiago de Chile. van Zanten, A., Kosunen, S., 2013. School choice research in five European countries: the circulation of Stephen Ball’s concepts and interpretations. Lond. Rev. Educ. 11 (3), 239–255. ?

160

Gonzalo Saravı´ is a researcher at the Center for Research and Graduate Studies in Social Anthropology (CIESAS), Mexico and Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Texas at Austin (2002). His main areas of interest are youth studies, class inequality, and urban sociability. Recent publications: 2015: ‘‘Youth experience of urban inequality: Space, class, and gender in Me´xico’’. In: Wyn, J., Cahill, H. (Eds), Handbook of Children and Youth Studies. London: Springer. 2014: ‘‘Rights and indigenous adolescence in Mexico. New subjects, new dilemmas’’ (with Pedro Abrantes & Marı´a Bertely), in The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 22 (2): 313–338. 2011: ‘‘Social exclusion and subjectivity: youth expressions in Latin America’’ (with Sara Makowski), in The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology, 16 (2): 315–334.