Special Education and Socioeconomic Status: Unveiling Parental Strategies for Success

• High-SES parents of children with disabilities employ a strategic and assertive approach to navigate the special education system, leveraging their financial, cultural, and social capital to ensure optimal outcomes for their children.
• These parents exhibit a unique class consciousness that informs their interactions with educational and therapeutic systems, enabling them to influence decisions ranging from diagnosis to placement and resource allocation for their children.
• While similar in their aspirations to the concerted cultivation practices observed among high-SES parents of children without disabilities, the methods employed by parents of children with disabilities are significantly amplified by their resources and tailored to address the complexities of the special education system.

---

Background

Gal-Jacob and Shoshana titled their article, “Class Consciousness as Cultural Capital among High-SES Parents of Children with Disabilities.”

This may seem to be just a bunch of jargony gobbledygook at first glance. But it actually contains within it a unique and intriguing argument: that “class consciousness” (jargony term #1) functions as “cultural capital” (jargony term #2) among parents with high socioeconomic status (SES) who have children with disabilities.

So, to understand their argument, we’d better get clear about what is meant by class consciousness and cultural capital.

Class consciousness is a term coined by Karl Marx.

It refers to an individual’s or group’s awareness of their place within a social and economic class system, including the understanding of shared interests, struggles, and inequalities that define their class position. This awareness fosters a sense of solidarity among members of the same class as they recognize their common experiences in contrast to those of other classes.

For the working class, class consciousness means acknowledging the disparities and injustices faced due to economic exploitation and the power dynamics that favor the upper class. For the upper class, it involves recognizing their privileged position, how it affords them advantages in society, and how they can act in ways that perpetuate these advantages.

Marx was keen to emphasize the role of SES in shaping society, dubbing the solidarity resulting from other types of shared group associations “false consciousness.” But today, sociologists generally agree that class consciousness extends beyond the economic sphere–intersecting with race, gender, and disability, among others–to highlight the complex ways in which various forms of inequality and privilege operate. Thus, it remains a key concept in understanding and addressing the multifaceted nature of social inequality.

(Note: If you’re wondering why sociologists today are still using terms and concepts pioneered by a guy who advocated for the violent overthrow of capitalist states, read my post from yesterday explaining why, even though he sucked as a political theorist, Marx remains one of the great socioeconomic theorists of society today.)

Today’s understanding of cultural capital was first articulated by French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu.

Bourdieu, writing a century after Marx in the 1970s and 1980s, argued that there are three distinct types of capital that play a crucial role in social stratification and the reproduction of social inequality:

• Economic capital is perhaps the most straightforward, encompassing money and material assets. It’s the wealth that can be directly translated into power and influence, allowing individuals to purchase goods, services, and opportunities that can improve their life chances and social standing. Economic capital is foundational to the other forms of capital, as it often facilitates access to cultural and social resources.
• Social capital refers to resources based on group membership, relationships, networks of influence, and support. It’s the value of social networks, bonding similar people and bridging between diverse people, with norms of reciprocity. Social capital allows individuals to access resources and opportunities through their relationships with others: leveraging friendships, familial ties, and professional connections to gain advantages in various social settings.
• Cultural capital is to some extent a catch-all that involves the assets that promote social mobility beyond who you know or how much money you have. This can include educational qualifications, intellect, style of speech, dress, or physical appearance, as well as cultural knowledge and competencies that one accumulates through being part of a particular social class.

Bourdieu attempted to make his concept of cultural capital less abstract by breaking it down into three further categories:

• Embodied cultural capital consists of the dispositions of the mind and body that one acquires over time through socialization and education. It includes knowledge, skills, manners, and tastes developed from one’s cultural background and experiences, such as language proficiency, aesthetic preferences, and educational attainments. Embodied capital is not transferable instantaneously; it requires time and, often, early immersion to acquire, making it deeply personal and a reflection of one’s upbringing and environment.
• Objectified cultural capital refers to the physical objects one can own or access, which are considered culturally valuable, such as artworks, books, instruments, or technology. These objects symbolize cultural authority and sophistication. While objectified cultural capital can be transferred or gifted, its utility and appreciation still depend on the embodied capital to understand and appreciate its cultural significance.
• Institutionalized cultural capital is recognized through formal systems, particularly in the form of academic qualifications and titles. It represents the social institution’s acknowledgment of one’s cultural competence and knowledge, often translating into social and economic advantages, such as higher earning potential or status recognition. Institutionalized cultural capital serves as a standardized measure of cultural capital that can be compared across individuals, thereby legitimizing and reinforcing the value of certain types of embodied and objectified capital.

Through these three forms, Bourdieu explains how cultural capital perpetuates social inequality. Those with access to the dominant culture’s capital are more likely to succeed in its institutions (like the education system), reinforcing existing social hierarchies. Understanding these forms helps illuminate the subtle, often overlooked ways that culture contributes to the maintenance of power structures within society.

Dozens of scholars have utilized and further developed Bourdieu’s types of capital.

Perhaps most famously, American sociologist Annette Lareau applied Bourdieu’s types of capital to different, class-based parenting styles in the early 2000s:

• Lareau argued that high-SES parents pass on advantages to their children through a parenting style that emphasizes what she called “concerted cultivation,” preparing them for future success.
• This approach contrasts with the “natural growth” parenting strategy more common among low-SES families, focusing on basic needs but lacking the structured, resource-intensive activities that characterize high-SES parenting.

One of the key areas where concerted cultivation differs from the natural growth paradigm of parenting is in navigating the educational system. In her book, Unequal Childhoods, Lareau uncovers several ways high-SES parents leverage their cultural capital to gain advantages for their children:

• Structured Schedules: Children’s lives are highly scheduled with activities that are believed to foster development and success, reflecting parents’ efforts to cultivate talents and skills.
• Emphasis on Language Development: There’s a strong focus on developing verbal abilities; parents often engage in reasoning and discussion with their children, which prepares them for academic success.
• Development of Negotiation Skills: Children are taught to question and negotiate with adults, developing an ease in interactions with authority figures, which can be advantageous in school settings.
• Active Management of Education: Parents engage actively in managing their children’s educational experiences, including organizing extracurricular activities that enhance skills valued by schools.
• Navigation of Institutions: Parents are more likely to intervene in their children’s schooling, advocating for their children’s interests, and using their knowledge of the educational system to secure resources and opportunities.

By contrast, Lareau argues that low-SES parents and children are more likely to be deferential to educational authorities, accepting judgments and directives without question instead of actively negotiating or advocating for their interests.

Enter the study authors.

Gal-Jacob and Shoshana observe that studies have extensively discussed parenting styles among different SES groups, emphasizing the cultivation of privilege and inequality. However, they also note that the experiences of parents of children with disabilities, segmented by SES, have been less explored, despite evidence suggesting SES influences on special education placement.

In Israel, as in the United States, students with disabilities are legally entitled to mainstream education services. Also like the United States, the reality is different than the ideal: schools are often slow to dedicate the resources necessary to serve students with disabilities, and it can be a challenging system to navigate.

Research questions:

In light of all of the above, Gal-Jacob and Shoshana want to examine whether the findings of Lareau and others apply to the special education process in Israel. They pose three research questions their study attempts to answer:

1. What are the unique parenting characteristics of high-SES parents of children with disabilities?
2. How do these parents leverage their resources to influence their children’s diagnosis, placement, and educational journey?
3. Do these parenting practices align with those documented for parents of children without disabilities?

Their exploration, they hope, will set the stage for a deeper understanding of the nuances of parenting, class, and cultural capital within the realm of special education.

Methods

Gal-Jacob and Shoshana employed a qualitative research design to delve into the experiences of high socioeconomic status (SES) parents of children with disabilities, particularly focusing on their navigation through the special education system in Israel. The methodology aimed to uncover the nuances of how these parents utilize their resources and influence within educational and governmental institutions.

Participants

• The study centered on semi-structured interviews with 15 high-SES parents (13 mothers and 2 fathers) who have been involved in placement committees for their children. This may seem like a small number of participants. However, for exploratory, qualitative studies like this one, sample size is less important. The goal is to generate a thick, detailed understanding of how a handful of participants navigate the system. It will be the job of future studies to see how common or generalizable these findings are.
• Demographics: Participants were aged 40 to 60 (average age of 46.2). Five parents had more than one child with disabilities, covering a range of conditions including autism, ADHD, cerebral palsy, and more.
• Professional backgrounds: All participants held academic degrees and were professionals in fields such as technology, education, therapy, engineering, law, and business ownership, residing in high-SES communities or neighborhoods in Israel.

Recruitment

• Recruitment was achieved through a Facebook post and personal networks, including friends and acquaintances familiar with individuals who had experienced special education placement committees. The snowball technique further facilitated recruitment, with new participants referred by initial interviewees.
• Again, this is not an ideal procedure. Random samples are preferable to convenience samples like these. But remember, this is an exploratory study trying to uncover the detailed processes of a handful of participants, not a study that aims to make sweeping generalizations about the whole high-SES population of Israel.

Data Collection: Semi-Structured Interviews

• Interview protocol: Covered general acquaintance, family background, specific experiences related to the child’s special needs, diagnostic processes, and detailed inquiries about experiences and perceptions related to placement committees.
• Procedure: Conducted during September-October 2020 amid a COVID-19 lockdown, interviews were carried out via Zoom, ensuring safety and accessibility for all participants.
• Thematic analysis: Utilized to identify and report patterns within the data, incorporating both deductive (theoretical) and inductive approaches to theme extraction.
• Ethics: The study was approved by an ethics committee, with informed consent obtained from all participants, ensuring confidentiality and voluntary participation.

Findings

The authors’ thematic analysis yielded three major themes:

1. The benefits of financial resources
2. The class consciousness of high-SES parents
3. The influence of these forms of capital upon diagnosis, decisions, and resource allocation

In answering their first research question, “What are the unique parenting characteristics of high-SES parents of children with disabilities?” Gal-Jacob and Shoshana identify several, all of which accord with Bourdieu’s and Lareau’s arguments:

• Class Consciousness: High-SES parents are acutely aware of their socioeconomic status and leverage this awareness, along with their cultural capital, to navigate the education system more effectively, ensuring favorable outcomes for their children.
• Investment in Resources: These parents are willing to invest significantly in therapies, educational supports, and even relocation to resource-rich environments if necessary, to ensure their children receive the best possible care and assistance.
• Strategic Parenting Approach: These parents exhibit a meticulous and strategic approach to parenting, focusing on managing their child’s disability with a comprehensive use of their available resources (financial, cultural, social, and symbolic) to ensure the best outcomes for their children.
• Assertive Engagement: They adopt an assertive stance in their interactions with the special education system, from the diagnostic process through to placement committees, advocating strongly for their children’s needs.

We can now see what Gal-Jacob and Shoshana mean by “class consciousness as cultural capital.” As they state:

“The awareness of high-SES parents of the differences between themselves and ‘other’ parents with different class characteristics expresses clear and explicit class consciousness. The parents underscored their status advantage by emphasizing a prestigious place of residence, education level, financial ability, and profession.”

In answering their second research question, “How do these parents leverage their resources to influence their children’s diagnosis, placement, and educational journey?” the authors argue that high-SES parents leverage their resources in several key ways to influence their children’s diagnosis, placement, and educational journey:

• Financial Resources: They use their financial capital to access a wide range of therapies and services, and are even prepared to move to more conducive living environments to ensure their children receive optimal support.
• Cultural Capital: These parents utilize their cultural and social capital to influence decisions within the educational system, including challenging or influencing diagnoses and decisions to align with their preferences.
• Educational System Navigation: Through assertive engagement and strategic use of their resources, high-SES parents effectively navigate the special education system, ensuring their children are placed in educational settings that best meet their needs.

In answering their third research question, “Do these parenting practices align with those documented for parents of children without disabilities?” the article suggests that while there are similarities in the aspirations of all parents for their children’s success, the means by which high-SES parents of children with disabilities go about achieving these goals are significantly amplified by their resources and social standing. Specifically:

• Concerted Cultivation: Similar to the “concerted cultivation” parenting style identified by Lareau among high-SES parents of children without disabilities, high-SES parents of children with disabilities also engage in intensive management of their children’s education and development. However, the focus shifts towards navigating the challenges of disabilities and special education.
• Utilization of Resources: Both groups of parents utilize their available resources to advocate for their children’s success. For parents of children with disabilities, this often means leveraging financial and cultural capital to navigate the special education system more effectively.
• Parental Advocacy and Involvement: High levels of parental advocacy and involvement are common to both groups. However, for parents of children with disabilities, this advocacy often takes on a more specialized focus, dealing with the complexities of special education laws, therapies, and educational placements.

In summary, while the overarching goals of providing the best possible outcomes for their children align, high-SES parents of children with disabilities employ these strategies with a heightened focus on overcoming the unique challenges posed by navigating the special education system. Their approach is characterized by an intensive, resource-driven advocacy that is tailored to the specific needs of their children, reflecting both the opportunities and challenges inherent in their unique situation.

What Can You Do?

The findings illuminate the significant impact of socioeconomic status on navigating the special education system. High-SES parents utilize their resources, both financial and cultural, to ensure their children receive the best possible support and opportunities. This proactive, resource-intensive approach contrasts with the experiences of lower-SES families, potentially exacerbating existing inequalities within the system. The study underscores the need for a more equitable approach to supporting all children with disabilities, regardless of their family’s socioeconomic status.

Gal-Jacob and Shoshana make several suggestions to help bring about this more equitable approach, including:

• Enhanced Support and Information for All Parents: Ensuring that parents from all socioeconomic backgrounds receive comprehensive information and support is crucial for equitable access to special education services.
• Uniform Standards and Ethical Guidelines: Establishing clear, uniform standards for resource allocation and decision-making processes can help mitigate the influence of socioeconomic status on outcomes for children with disabilities.
• Professional Development for Special Education Teams: Training for special education professionals that emphasizes ethical decision-making and awareness of socioeconomic biases can support a more inclusive and equitable approach to education for children with disabilities.

As far as what you personally can do, consider the following:

1. Advocate for Policy Reform: Support policies that aim for equitable funding and resources for special education programs across all schools, regardless of the socioeconomic status of the community.
2. Promote Awareness and Education: Increase awareness among all parents about their rights and the resources available for children with disabilities, including how to navigate the special education system.
3. Build Community Support Networks: Create and participate in support networks for parents of children with disabilities to share information, resources, and advocacy strategies.
4. Enhance Teacher Training: Advocate for comprehensive special education training for all teachers, not just those in special education, to ensure they can effectively support diverse learners.
5. Volunteer and Support Inclusive Activities: Support or volunteer for programs and activities that are inclusive of children with and without disabilities, promoting understanding and empathy among peers.
6. Push for Transparent Processes: Work towards making the diagnostic and placement processes in special education more transparent and accessible to all parents, helping to demystify and destigmatize the system.
7. Engage in School Boards and Committees: Become involved in local school boards or committees to influence decisions and policies that affect special education and advocate for fair practices.
8. Support Legal Advocacy Groups: Support or engage with legal advocacy groups that fight for the rights of students with disabilities, ensuring that laws and regulations are fairly applied and enforced.
9. Implement Community Education Programs: Encourage the development of community education programs that aim to educate the broader public about the challenges and needs of children with disabilities.
10. Foster Partnerships Between Schools and Parents: Promote and participate in initiatives that strengthen the collaboration between schools and parents of children with disabilities, ensuring that parents are seen as equal partners in their child’s education.
11. Advocate for Inclusive Curriculum Development: Push for curricula that are inclusive and accommodating of all students, including those with disabilities, to ensure equitable learning opportunities.
12. Promote Universal Design for Learning (UDL): Advocate for the adoption of UDL principles in schools, which aim to create flexible learning environments that accommodate the individual learning differences of all students.
13. Encourage the Use of Assistive Technology: Support the integration of assistive technology in classrooms to ensure students with disabilities have the tools they need to succeed.
14. Demand Accountability and Quality Assurance: Demand that schools and educational systems are held accountable for the quality of special education services provided, through regular monitoring and evaluation.
15. Champion Socioeconomic Diversity in Schools: Advocate for policies and practices that promote socioeconomic diversity in schools, as diverse environments can foster a more equitable and inclusive educational experience for all students.

By taking these actions, individuals and communities can work towards dismantling the systemic barriers that contribute to inequities within the special education system, moving closer to a fair and inclusive educational landscape for all children.