Sorting Machines: Digital Technology and Categorical Inequality in Education

Abstract

Existing scholarship suggests that schools do the work of social stratification by functioning as “sorting machines,” or institutions that determine which populations of students are provided educational resources needed to help them get ahead. We build on this theory of social reproduction by extending it to better understand how digital technology use is implicated in this process of unequal resource allocation in schools. We contend that educational resources, like digital technologies, are also sorted by schools. Drawing on scholarship from both education research and science and technology studies, we show how educational institutions have long played a role in constructing the value of technologies to different ends, by constructing hierarchies of technological activity, like “vocational” and “academic” computer use, even when strikingly similar. We then apply this lens to three areas of inquiry in education research: the use of digital technologies for instruction, school use of student data, and college admissions. Each illustrates how education scholars can view technologies as part of school sorting processes and with implications for inequality within and beyond the classroom.

Keywords

computers and learning cultural analysis equity instructional technologies social stratification sociology technology

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aliaga

O. A.

Kotamraju

Stone

J. R.

(2014). Understanding participation in secondary career and technical education in the 21st century: Implications for policy and practice. High School Journal, 97(3), 128–158. https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2014.0002

Beer

Burrows

(2013). Popular culture, digital archives, and the new social life of data. Theory, Culture & Society, 30(4), 47–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276413476542

Berry

(2021). Technology and college access: Understanding the unique challenges and opportunities Black students face. University of Southern California, Pullias Center for Higher Education.

Brint

S. G.

Karabel

(1989). The diverted dream: Community colleges and the promise of educational opportunity in America, 1900-1985. Oxford University Press.

Brown

Wohn

Ellison

(2016). Without a map: College access and the online practices of youth from low-income communities. Computers & Education, 92–93, 104–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.001

Collins

(2009). Social reproduction in classrooms and schools. Annual Review of Anthropology, 38, 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.37.081407.085242

Deil-Amen

DeLuca

(2010). The underserved third: How our educational structures populate an educational underclass. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 15(1–2), 27–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824661003634948

Domina

Penner

(2017). Categorical inequality: Schools as sorting machines. Annual Review of Sociology, 43, 311–330. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-060116-053354

Eynon

(2013). The rise of big data: What does it mean for education, technology, and media research? Learning, Media and Technology, 38(3), 237–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2013.771783

10.

Eynon

(2021). Becoming digitally literate: Reinstating an educational lens to digital skills policies for adults. British Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 146–162. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3686

11.

Friedland

Alford

R. R.

(1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols practices, and institutional contradictions. In Powell

W. W.

DiMaggio

P. J.

(Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–263). University of Chicago Press.

12.

Goldin

(1999). A brief history of education in the United States (NBER Historical Working Paper No. 119). National Bureau of Economic Research.

13.

Goode

Flapan

Margolis

(2018). Computer science for all: A school reform framework for broadening participation in computing. In Tierney

W. G.

Corwin

Z. B.

Ochsner

(Eds.), Diversifying digital learning: Online literacy and educational opportunity (pp. 45–65). Johns Hopkins University Press.

14.

Hargittai

Walejko

(2008). The participation divide: Content creation and sharing in the digital age. Information, Community & Society, 11(2), 239–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180801946150

15.

Ito

Gutiérrez

Livingstone

Penuel

Rhodes

Salen

Schor

Sefton-Green

Watkins

S. C.

(2013). Connected learning: An agenda for research and design. Digital Media and Learning Research Hub.

16.

Kumar

Vitak

Chetty

Clegg

(2019). The platformization of the classroom: Teachers as surveillant consumers. Surveillance & Society, 17(1/2), 145–152. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v17i1/2.12926

17.

Labaree

D. F.

(2010). How Dewey lost: The victory of David Snedden and social efficiency in the reform of American education. In Trohler

Schlag

Osterwalder

(Eds.), Pragmatism and modernities (pp. 163–188). Sense.

18.

Lamont

(2012). Toward a comparative sociology of valuation and evaluation. Annual Review of Sociology, 38, 201–221. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-120022

19.

Lawn

(2013). The rise of data in education. In Lawn

(Ed.), The rise of data in education systems: Collections, visualization and use (pp. 7–10). Symposium.

20.

Lupton

Williamson

(2017). The datafied child: The dataveillance of children and implications for their rights. New Media & Society, 19(5), 780–794. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816686328

21.

MacMillan

Anderson

(2019, October 14). Student tracking, secret scores: How college admissions offices rank prospects before they apply. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/14/colleges-quietly-rank-prospective-students-based-their-personal-data/

22.

Oakes

(2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality (2nd ed.). Yale University Press.

23.

Pfeiffer

(2010, March 30). Universities use social media to connect. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/education/31iht-riedsoc.html

24.

Puckett

(2019). CS4Some? Differences in technology learning readiness. Harvard Educational Review, 89(4), 554–587. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1238028

25.

Puckett

(2022). Redefining geek: Bias and the five hidden habits of tech-savvy teens. University of Chicago Press.

26.

Puckett

Gravel

B. E.

(2020). Institutional ambiguity and de facto tracking in STEM. Teachers College Record, 122(8), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146812012200811

27.

Puckett

Nelson

J. L.

(2019). The geek instinct: Theorizing cultural alignment in disadvantaged contexts. Qualitative Sociology, 42(1), 25–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-019-9408-4

28.

Puckett

Rafalow

M. H.

(2020). From “impact” to “negotiation”: Educational technologies and inequality. In Sobieraj

Rohlinger

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of sociology and digital media. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197510636.013.8

29.

Rafalow

M. H.

(2018). Disciplining play: Digital youth culture as capital at school. American Journal of Sociology, 123(5), 1416–1452. https://doi.org/10.1086/695766

30.

Rafalow

M. H.

(2020). Digital divisions: How schools create inequality in the Tech era. University of Chicago Press.

31.

Schaffer

(2018). Kaplan test prep survey: Social media checks by college admissions offers decline due to savvier applicants and shifting attitudes. Kaplan.

32.

Scheerder

A. J.

van Deursen

van Dijk

(2020). Taking advantage of the internet: A qualitative analysis to explain why educational background is decisive in gaining positive outcomes. Poetics, 80, Article 101426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2019.101426

33.

Selwyn

(2020). Re-imagining “learning analytics” . . . a case for starting again? Internet and Higher Education, 46, Article 100745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2020.100745

34.

Selwyn

Facer

(2013). The politics of education and technology: Conflicts, controversies, and connections. Palgrave.

35.

Singer

Ivory

(2017, November 3). How Silicon Valley plans to conquer the classroom. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/03/technology/silicon-valley-baltimore-schools.html

36.

Stevens

M. L.

(2009). Creating a class. Harvard University Press.

37.

Timmermans

Berg

(2003). The practice of medical technology. Sociology of Health & Illness, 25(3), 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.00342

38.

Warschauer

Knobel

Stone

(2004). Technology and equity in schooling: Deconstructing the digital divide. Educational policy, 18(4), 562–588. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904804266469

39.

Williamson

(2015). Governing software: Networks, databases and algorithmic power in the digital governance of public education. Learning, Media and Technology, 40(1), 83–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2014.924527

40.

Young

V. M.

(2006). Teachers’ use of data: Loose coupling, agenda setting, and team norms. American journal of education, 112(4), 521–548. https://doi.org/10.1086/505058