Submit your paper electronically to the Soc 140 Canvas site. Background: This quarter we critically examine the belief that U.S society is a meritocracy where social mobility and status attainment are determined solely by talent, hard work, ambition, and perseverance.

1. Sociology 140: Social Stratification
FOR MORE CLASSES VISIT
www.tutorialoutlet.com
Submit your paper electronically to the Soc 140 Canvas site.
Background: This quarter we critically examine the belief that U.S
society is a meritocracy where social mobility
and status attainment are determined solely by talent, hard work,
ambition, and perseverance. In general, we as a
society are comfortable with inequality as long as it is the outcome of
a fair competition – our acceptance tends to
rest on the assumption that everyone has an equal opportunity to
succeed, so a person’s lack of success can be
attributable only to that person, and not to the society as a whole.
Because of our commitment to the ideals of
competition and meritocracy, policies aimed at reducing inequality
have primarily been aimed at ensuring that
everyone enters the competition (for jobs and the valued rewards of
society) with equal advantages and
disadvantages, i.e., the policies are aimed at equalizing opportunity.
Furthermore, most of the initiatives and efforts
to equalize opportunity have focused on expanding access to and
improving the quality of education. The Assignment: The object of
the final paper project for Sociology 140 is to analyze a social policy
that is aimed
at reducing inequality through the equalization of educational
opportunities by examining the assumptions on which

2. the policy rests, and assessing whether the policy is likely to achieve
the aim of increasing equality in educational
outcomes. The educational policy you will analyze is the provision of
school vouchers to public school students. I have collected a set of
research materials for this policy that you may use as resources for
your paper. The
materials include: (1) a Frontline documentary that will be shown in
class (the transcript is available on the course
website), and (2) a series of related articles and book chapters.
A complete analysis of the educational policy will include: • a
definition/explanation of the policy
• identification of the aims of the policy, i.e., what is/was the original
or professed goal of the policy?
• identification of the assumptions on which the policy is based, e.g.,
assumptions about the causes of
unequal educational access and outcomes, about the distribution of
resources (including knowledge), etc.
and an evaluation of the verity of those assumptions (e.g., relative to
empirical evidence, logic, critical
analysis, etc.)
• an assessment of the degree to which the policy is likely to achieve
its aims. In other words, provide a
reasoned and justified answer to the question: Is this policy likely to
reduce inequality in educational
outcomes? The justification for your answer to this question should be
informed by an assessment of the

3. verity of the fundamental assumptions on which the policy rests. I
emphasize that you should focus on presenting a balanced
sociological analysis of the policy that draws on the
research materials available to you (discussed below) and the theories,
concepts, and information presented in the
course readings and discussed in class.
Intended audience: The intended audience for this paper is composed
of your Sociology 140 classmates. You
should write as if you are presenting your analysis to your colleagues
in order to inform them with your observations
and convince them that your analysis is sound by providing adequate
supporting evidence. Evaluation Criteria: Your grade on this
assignment will be based on the following criteria:
1) The degree to which you provide a thorough identification of the
aims and assumptions of the policy you
analyze and a reasoned assessment of the likelihood that the policy
will reduce inequality. Correct
identification of relevant theories and concepts presented in class and
accurate use of the related
terminology. You will need to demonstrate comprehension of the
concepts and understanding of the
complexities/subtleties of the social factors that influence inequality
as well as the aims and assumptions of
the policies that are intended to reduce it.
2) The depth and strength of your analysis. A strong analysis is one
that presents ideas clearly and provides
support for those ideas. You will need to support your thesis with
specific information from the resources

4. you use for your research in such a way as to convince your audience
of the validity of your argument.
3) Organization of your paper. Your paper should present your
analysis in a logical and orderly manner. It
should include an introduction that clearly states the central argument
of the analysis. The body of your
paper should present the evidence that both supports and detracts
from your argument. Finally, your paper
should include a conclusion that summarizes the analysis you have
presented.
4) Mechanics of writing. Correct grammar, spelling, punctuation, and
word choice are essential to a strong and
organized presentation of your analysis. You should strive to make
your writing clear, precise, and concise.
Format and Technical Instructions: Strict adherence to the following
instructions is required:
1) The paper should be 5-7 pages long. It must be computer-produced,
double-spaced, use 12-point font,
and one-inch margins on all sides. Number the pages.
2) Use inline referencing (parenthetical referencing) to cite relevant
materials from the readings and lectures.
Provide a bibliography of all the references cited (the bibliography is
not included in the 5-7 page limit for the
paper).
3) Spell-check and proofread your paper carefully for clarity of ideas
and writing, organization and logic of

5. presentation, and correct use of words and grammar. A guide to the
basic structure of the paper: Use this basic guide to organize your
paper. Remember that your
goal is to write an ordered, logical, and (above all) readable paper.
The Opener: “Tell me what you are going to say”
In the opening paragraph(s), you need:
@ To tell the reader what the paper addresses.
@ A focused, limited thesis statement, the main idea or position
controlling the entire paper. Everything
revolves around this claim: I shall argue fill-in-the-blank. The
position placed in the blank is the thesis
and is the most specific sentence of the introductory paragraph(s), but
do not say, “In this paper, I am
going to discuss...” or “I will argue that ...” Just state your point.
@ An encompassing scope statement – in addition to the thesis
statement; it should include the
significant key ideas that emerge in the body of the paper.
@ A statement about the overall organization of the paper.
@ Reconsider the introductory paragraph(s) after you have written the
rest of the paper. Ask yourself,
“What am I really trying to say?” “Am I saying it clearly and boldly
and with breadth and depth?”
The Middle: “Say it”
The interior of the paper is where you present your description and
analysis; it is where you develop and

6. support your thesis. The interior of the paper should:
@ Be clear, precise and concise – the reader should not have to
struggle with interpretation.
@ See beyond the obvious and look at the issue in a new way.
@ Provide transitional expressions or sentences. Stay away from the
basic “First,” “Second,” “Next,”
“Finally.” Build coherent, fluid movement between paragraphs by
threading sentences at the beginning
or end of paragraphs that weave relationships and by using key words
found in adjacent paragraphs.
@ Include logical signal words or “signposts,” such as “nevertheless”
or “however,” but should not
become exclusively or overly dependent upon them.
@ Each paragraph should stay unified around a single point, building
topic sentences, relationships, and
explanations of examples that advance the main idea of the analysis.
The Closing: “Tell me what you said”
The closing paragraph(s) should:
@ Not merely repeat what has already been said in the thesis and
body; take some chances here,
experiment, challenge the reader, but shun redundancy.
@ Bring the main point into sharp focus with fresh language and
thoughtful resolution.
@ Bring closure to the paper, rounding out ideas and thoughts.
Vouchers Debate Resources

7. “Frontline: The Battle Over School Choice”
(Note: the website is not maintained anymore, but it is still available:
Web Site:
Resource #1
Astin, Alexander W. 1992. “Educational “Choice”: Its Appeal May be
Illusory,” Sociology of Education 65(4):255260.
Coleman, James S. 1992. “Some Points on Choice in Education,”
Sociology of Education 65(4):260-262.
Sernau, Scott. 1993. “School Choices, Rational and Otherwise: A
Comment on Coleman,” Sociology of
Education 66(1):88-90.
Resource #2
Berliner, David C. and Bruce J. Biddle. 1995. The Manufactured
Crisis: Myths, Fraud, and the Attack on
America’s Public Schools. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing
Co.
Chapter 5: Poor Ideas for Reform, pp. 173-214.
Resource #3
Engel, Michael. 2000. The Struggle for Control of Public Education:
Market Ideology vs. Democratic Values.
Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Chapter 2: Market Ideology, pp. 18-43.
Chapter 3: Democratic Education, pp. 44-67.
Chapter 4: School Choice, pp. 68-92.

8. Resource #4
Fuller, Bruce, Richard F. Elmore, and Gary Orfield. 1996. “Policy-
Making in the Dark: Illuminating the School
Choice Debate.” Chapter 1 (pp. 1-24) in Who Chooses? Who Loses?,
edited by B. Fuller and R.F.
Elmore. New York: Teachers College Press.
Wells, Amy Stuart. 1996. “African-American Students’ View of
School Choice.” Chapter 2 (pp. 25-49) in Who
Chooses? Who Loses?, edited by B. Fuller and R.F. Elmore. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Resource #5
Cookson, Peter W., Jr. 1994. School Choice: The Struggle for the
Soul of American Education. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Chapter 1: Lifestyle Loyalties in an Age of Doubt, pp. 1-16.
Chapter 2: Reformers and Revolutionaries: The Drama of
Deregulation, pp. 17-37.
Resource #6
Wells, Amy Stuart and Robert L. Crain. 1997. Stepping Over the
Color Line: African-American Students in White
Suburban Schools. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Chapter 4: Consumers of Urban Education, pp. 151-179.
Resource #7
Witte, John F. 2000. The Market Approach to Education: An Analysis
of America’s First Voucher Program.

9. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Chapter 2: The Enduring Controversy over Educational Choice, pp.
11-28.
Chapter 4: Who Participates in Choice Programs?, pp. 52-156.
Chapter 7: The Politics of Vouchers, pp. 157-209.