Socialization of Pragmatic and Materialistic Value in School

Selection, and Intergenerational Mobility in the Surakarta City

Bagus Haryono

Sociology, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Sebelas Maret, Indonesia

Keywords: Socialization, Pragmatic, Materialistic, School, Mobility.

Abstract: The aim of this research is to explain the effect of Socialization of Pragmatic and Materialistic Value in

school choice, and intergenerational mobility in the Surakarta city. This research is categorized in

qualitative type. Primary data were collected through observation, and interviews. Secondary data is taken

from the population administration document. Data analyzed on comparatively and explanatively. The Head

of Family in Jebres city were chosen as informant of research. They were selected by purposive sampling,

determined by education, work and earnings. The findings indicate that socialization of pragmatic and

materialistic value is categorized as radical socialization. Although the socialization of such values is done

by all parents, but in reality it given different by class (income). The low incomes of informant are

predominantly directing their children education choice to the vocational schools, in order to work quickly

and make money. The same cases also found in the higher of their income. The ownership of their limited

educational capacity, consequently they absorbed into low-skilled jobs, with low wage compensation. The

depiction of declining mobility between three generations is not only happening in low-income societies,

but also found in the higher of their income.

1 INTRODUCTION

The aim of this research is to explain the effect of

Socialization of Pragmatic and Materialistic Value

in school choice, and Intergenerational Mobility in

the Surakarta city. The intergenerational mobility of

the children in the Surakarta city can be treasured

from the parent socio economic status (SES)

background. Their parent SES usually measured by

the education, employment and income. Generally

the parents SES have positive correlation to the

children SES. The parent usually has expectation to

the children in order to have a higher SES than him,

or they have effort to support their children as the

next generations minimally should have equal to

him.

The prior research support to that correlation

among it ideas. There are the impact of economic

family background on educated young people (in

peripheral China - Du, 2017); the impact of family

education on student educational achievement (in

Sweden 1988–2014, Gustafsson and Hansen, 2017);

the correlation the effect of Education on Incomes

(in 27 Countries - Domański, 2006); the education

and intergenerational mobility (in Singapore - Irene,

2014); intergenerational mobility and occupational

status (in Italy - Pietro and Urwin, 2010);

intergenerational educational mobility (in Denmark -

Tverborgvik, et al, 2013); intergenerational mobility

and occupational status (in Britain - Carmichael,

2010); intergenerational educational mobility;

transitions and social distances (in Greece -

Stamatopoulou and Michalopoulou, 2016); the high-

performing academies overcome family background

and improve the children social mobility (Barker and

Hoskins, 2017).

The prior result show us that the parents

education has significant effects on the children’s

education achievement level, the significant effects

on children’s schooling outcomes, and the long-term

effects on individual’s educational achievement

(Cheng, 2017). But the interesting idea in this

research is the parents SES background not always

followed by the children SES. Firstly, there are

parents with higher SES background, followed by

the lower SES children. Secondly, the parents with

the lower SES, followed by the child or next

generation with higher SES.

Haryono, B.

Socialization of Pragmatic and Materialistic Value in School Selection, and Intergenerational Mobility in the Surakarta City.

DOI: 10.5220/0009024300002297

In Proceedings of the Borneo International Conference on Education and Social Sciences (BICESS 2018), pages 589-595

ISBN: 978-989-758-470-1

589

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

1. Socialization of Pragmatic and Materialistic

Value

a. Socialization is the process by which

people, especially children, are made to

behave in a way which is acceptable in

their culture or society (Grusec and

Hastings, 2014,

https://www.collinsdictionary.com ). It

categorized as the primary, secondary,

passive, active and radical socialization

(Karsidi, 2005; Robinson, 1986; Höppner,

2017).

b. Pragmatic is dealing with things sensibly

and realistically in a way that is based on

practical rather than theoretical

considerations

(https://en.oxforddictionaries.com ; James,

1975).

c. Materialistic is believing that having

money and possessions is the most

important thing in life

(https://dictionary.cambridge.org;

Kilbourne and Pickett, 2008; Kasser et al,

2004; Sik, 2014).

d. Value is the regard that something is held

to deserve; the importance, worth, or

usefulness of something, principles or

standards of behavior.

2. School Selection

a. School is an institution for the teaching of

children (https://www.merriam-

webster.com).

b. Selection is the action or fact of carefully

choosing someone or something as being

the best or most suitable

(https://en.oxforddictionaries.com).

c. School Selection is the carefully choosing

the best or most suitable School (Chen and

Sönmez, 2006; Haeringer and Klijn, 2009;

Rabovsky, 2011; Collins and Kenway,

2000).

3. Intergenerational Mobility

a. Intergenerational is the social classes and

occupations movement occurring from

one generation to the next

(https://www.collinsdictionary.com ).

b. Mobility is the movement of people in a

population, as from place to place, from

job to job, from one social class or level to

another (https://www.dictionary.com).

c. Intergenerational Mobility is the social

class movement of people in a population,

as from place to place, from job to job, or

from one social class or level to another,

occurring from one generation to the next.

In the inheriting process the future of

the children, the parent always expecting

occurs the intergenerational persistence of

educational status (Burns and Keswell,

2012); and intergenerational mobility

(Corak, 2013; Blanden and Machin, 2005;

Dearden and Reed, 1997; Gugushvili,

2016).

4. The exploration the factors influencing the

Intergenerational Mobility.

a. Factors (Socioeconomic background)

known influencing the educational

performance of males and females in

school and their initial destinations after

leaving school (Azaroff, 1991 and Hauser,

1971), and followed by the upward

mobility (Kupfer, 2012).

b. Home learning, parental warmth, class and

educational outcomes known influencing

the social mobility (Hartas, 2014).

c. The relationship among intergenerational

educational and occupational mobility (in

Spain - Escobar and Izquierdo, 2014).

d. The impact of career mobility, education

on intergenerational reproduction (in Five

European Societies - Barone and

Schizzerotto, 2011).

e. The relationship among Intergenerational

and Career Mobility (in the Federal

Republic and the United States -

Kappelhoff and Teckenberg, 2016).

f. Intergenerational mobility modes and

changes in social class (in Contemporary

China - Lulu and Bin, 2017).

g. The impact of parental education on the

children outcomes (Dickson, et al, 2016);

on the loss aversion, education, and

intergenerational mobility (Malloy, 2015).

The impact of intergenerational

transmission of education, Social mobility

and inequality (in urban China:

understanding the role of (Magnani and

Zhu, 2015). Do birth order and family size

matter for intergenerational income

mobility? Evidence from Sweden (Lena,

2011).

i. The impact of other family members on

intergenerational occupational mobility

(beck, 2016); on intergenerational income

mobility (in Britain - Atkinson, 2015).

Education, opportunity and the prospects

for social mobility (Brown, 2013).

BICESS 2018 - Borneo International Conference On Education And Social

590

j. Intergenerational dependence in

education and income (Johnson, 2010).

Higher vocational education and social

mobility: educational participation in

Australia and England (Webb, et al, 2017).

k. The intergenerational dimension of

credentialism and its implications for

vocational change in education (Moore

and Trenwith, 2006).

l. The Reflections of education on social

mobility (Halsey, 2013).

One of the opponent sociologist analyzed

Class Structure and Intergenerational Mobility from

a Marxian Perspective. Four mobility and attainment

propositions (Smith, 2016) are extracted from a

theoretical discussion relating class mobility and

attainment processes to the development of

capitalism. Firstly, the proposition maintains that

paralleling the development of capitalism will be a

structural decrease in the relative size of the capital-

owning classes resulting in mobility. Secondly, the

proposition is asserted that with the development of

capitalism, the likelihood of downward mobility will

be significantly greater than the probability of

upward mobility. Thirdly, the proposition stated that

in advanced capitalist societies, circulation class

mobility will be substantially constrained by

structural change. Lastly, it is proposed that in

advanced capitalist societies, attained class positions

will depend significantly on an unmediated (by

educational attainment) origin class effect. Empirical

support is uncovered for all propositions.

Theoretically the relationship between

Education, Work (Job) and Earnings (Income) can

be presented in the following thinking schema:

Education ====> Work (Job) ====> Earnings

(Income)

Scheme 1. The Education, Work (Job) and Earnings

(Income).

The theoretically, the relationship between

Education, Work (Job) and Earnings (Income) can

be presented in the following table 1:

Table 1. The ideal relationship among Education, Work and Income.

Education

High moderate Low

Job Hi

resti

e Hi

h Income - -

Moderate

resti

e - Moderate Income -

Low

restige - - Low Income

Based on the parents ideal conditions, where

their education has a linear relationship with the

work prestige and income earned. In the condition of

highly educated parents, backed by high job prestige

and income, parents become actors who will give

children complete freedom to make their school

choices unimpeded. The parents with the high SES,

generally tend to direct or choose to send the

children to the public school, seed (favorite) school,

wherever according to the choice of child. By

choosing a public school, expected the children have

maximum competition to enter the college lane in

the academic college level (undergraduate), graduate

strata or even post graduate with seeded (favorite) as

well. Parent wish the children take maximum access

to compete in obtaining high prestige job, which

would be followed by high income as well.

There are many differential factors usually

have impact on school performance of the children;

might be the expenditures, income (Davis, 2005 and

Hanushek, 1989); assets, parental aspirations,

parental expectations and involvement (Zhan and

Sherraden, 2003; Zhan, 2006; Goldenberg and

Garnier, 2001), family size, parental resources and

the education quality (Blake, 1981; Downey, 1995).

The economic factors – might be employment or

job, parental unemployment or parental job loss and

income (Rege and Votruba, 2011) also have impact

on the children’s educational performance

(Bernstein, 1961, and Levine, 2011), in the second

generation (Schmid, 2001; Portes and Hao, 2004;

Portes and Rumbaut, 2005). The last but not least,

the social factors, might be social stratification or

class in society also known as the significant factors

(Lareau, 2011; Portes and MacLeod, 1996) have

impact on the children’s educational performance.

In a context where the parents and children

are classified found somewhat constrained. In this

situation, the parents with moderate until high

education categories, supported by moderate until

high-achieving prestige. But the parent only gave the

children to compete in many look for a job in

moderate until high income. In this context, parents

generally tend to direct or opt for schooling in a

public school favorite wherever, in accordance with

the choice of the children. But the children has

Socialization of Pragmatic and Materialistic Value in School Selection, and Intergenerational Mobility in the Surakarta City

591

limitation must consider income condition of his

parents. By choosing a public school, it is expected

to compete to enter the college lane in the academic

college or undergraduate level, graduate level or

even postgraduate level in seeded (favorite)

categories as well. The parent expected to the

children to compete to look for in many job with

prestige is up to high categories, which would be

followed by the acceptance of moderate until high

income also.

In a context where the parents and the

children are classified found as a strong constraints

condition. The parents with moderate until low

education, supported by moderate until low

employment and income, generally tend to direct or

choose to send their favorite vocational schools

(favorite) wherever their children choose. By

choosing a vocational school, is expected to avoid

competing to enter the college lane in the academic

college or undergraduate level, graduate level or

even postgraduate level path. But the parent

expected to the children in order to be possible as

early as to compete in getting a job. The children

immediately is expected by their parents to help the

economic burden of the family, although the

children take a low prestige job, and does not give

promise high income.

3 METHODOLOGY

This research is categorized in qualitative type

(Lewis, 2015; Bogdan and Biklen, 1992). Primary

data were collected through observation, and

interviews. Secondary data is taken from the

population administration document. Data analyzed

by comparatively and explanatively (Sgier, 2012;

Gillies and Rosalind, 2006; Gugushvili, 2016).

The Head of Family in Jebres District were

chosen as informant of research (Reyes and Kazdin,

2004; Harvey, et al, 2013). They were selected by

purposive sampling (Tongco, 2007; Suen, et al,

2014; Higginbottom, 2004) determined by

education, work and earnings.

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The empirical relationship among Education, Work

(Job) and Earnings (Income) can be shown through

the following table 3.

1. In this study there is only a small part of

informants (25%) show that between his

education, prestige work or job and income

domain found a linear relationship. The first, the

higher education informants, followed by the

high-prestige jobs, and the high incomes. The

second, the moderate level education of

informants, followed by the job with the moderate

prestige, and the moderate earnings as well. The

third, the low level education of informants,

followed by the job with the low prestige, and the

low income too.

2. But the most informants (75%) found that between

education, work prestige and income have non

linear relationships. The most informants with the

higher education are actually found doing job in

the moderate to low prestige category – followed

the amount of income in the moderate to low.

Even in parental job loss conditions followed by

no income.

3. What is interesting thing that there is no direct link

between the education and the job, there is not

match among it. The high academic achievement

of informant, are not automatically absorbed in the

required labor market. The educational path

proves not always in line with the existing labor

market.

4. The pragmatic attitude of informants occurs where

so abundant labor is available, but is not followed

by adequate employment and labor absorption. As

a result, the informant remains willing to accept

the real work although in the under his or her

expectations, even with salary or income paid is

inconsistent with the education level and the job

prestige of he / she is engaged in.

Pragmatic was happened to informants who

with higher education to earn high income, doing the

job even though lack of prestige equal with

education that has. The choice is to do hand-sewn

work - scavengers, pedicab or rickshaw drivers,

tailors, land brokers, motorcycle or taxi drivers, go

car drivers, illegal timber sales, part-timer workers,

even gambling businesses.

BICESS 2018 - Borneo International Conference On Education And Social

592

Table 2. The informant determined by Education, Work (Job) and Earnings (Income).

Education

Jobs

Income

Education

h Low

High -

restige

Jobs

Low-

restige Jobs High -

resti

e Jobs

Low -

restige

Jobs

Earnings

(Income)

High 1 2 3 4

Low 5 6 7 8

Table 3. The actual relationship among Education, Work and Income.

Education

h moderate Low

resti

e Hi

h Income

Low Income

Moderate

resti

e Moderate Income Moderate Income

h Income Hi

h Income

Low

restige High Income Moderate Income Low Income

Moderate Income Moderate Income Moderate Income

Low Income Low Income Hi

h Income

5 CONCLUSIONS

Based on these findings, it can therefore be

summarized as follows:

1. The findings indicate that socialization of

pragmatic and materialistic values is categorized

as radical socialization.

2. Although the socialization of such values is done

by all parents, but in reality it given different by

class (income).

3. The children of the low incomes informant are

predominantly directing to the choice of

vocational schools, in order to work quickly and

make money. But found also in their income on it.

4. Although the ownership of limited educational

capacity, it has resulted in them only being

absorbed into low-skilled jobs, with low wage

compensation.

5. But the reality found there are opposite condition.

In the three generations portraits, the depiction of

declining mobility between generations is not only

happening in low-income societies, but found in

those on top of it.

Thus, any 'deviations' can be avoided by

doing the following things: intergenerational

mobility can run smoothly, regardless of the SES

background of their parents, if the socialization is

active, the school choice is based on the interests of

their child.

ACKNOWLEDMENTS

We would like to special thank to The Ministry of

Research, Technology and Higher Education of The

Republic of Indonesia for giving the 2018 Post-

graduate Program Team Research Scheme budget to

this research

REFERENCES

Atkinson, A. B. 2015. On Intergenerational Income

Mobility in Britain. Journal of Post Keynesian

Economics, Volume 3, 1980 - Issue 2.

Azaroff, Beth Sulzer. 1991. Accepting The Challenge: A

Behavioral Perspective on Improving Educational

Performance. Behavior and Social Issues,

Spring/Swnmer 1991, Vol. 1, Number 1.

Barker, Bernard and Kate Hoskins.2017. Can high-

performing academies overcome family background

and improve social mobility? British Journal of

Sociology of Education, Volume 38, 2017 - Issue 2

Barone, Carlo and Antonio Schizzerotto.2011.

Introduction: Career Mobility, Education, and

Intergenerational Reproduction in Five European

Societies. European Societies, Volume 13, 2011 -

Issue 3.

Beck, Scott H. 2016. The Role of Other Family Members

in Intergenerational Occupational Mobility. The

Sociological Quarterly, Volume 24, 1983 - Issue 2

Bernstein, B. 1961. Social class and linguistic

development: A theory of social learning. Education,

economy and society, 288-314.

Blake, J. 1981. Family size and the quality of children.

Demography, 18(4), 421-442.

Socialization of Pragmatic and Materialistic Value in School Selection, and Intergenerational Mobility in the Surakarta City

593

Blanden, J., Gregg, P., & Machin, S. 2005.

Intergenerational mobility in Europe and North

America. Report supported by the Sutton Trust, Centre

for Economic Performance, London School of

Economics.

Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. 1992. Qualitative research for

education.

Brown, Phillip. 2013. Education, opportunity and the

prospects for social mobility. British Journal of

Sociology of Education, Volume 34, 2013 - Issue 5-6

Burns, Justine and Malcolm Keswell. 2012. Inheriting the

Future: Intergenerational Persistence of Educational

Status in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa; Journal of

Economic History of Developing Regions, Volume 27,

2012 - Issue 1

Carmichael, Fiona. 2010. Intergenerational mobility and

occupational status in Britain. Applied Economics

Letters, Volume 7, 2000 - Issue 6

Chen, Y., & Sönmez, T. 2006. School choice: an

experimental study. Journal of Economic theory,

127(1), 202-231.

Cheng, Wenya. 2017. The impact of parental education on

children’s outcomes in China. Journal of Chinese

Economic and Business Studies;Volume 15, 2017 -

Issue 4.

Collins, C. W., McLeod, J., & Kenway, J. 2000. Factors

influencing the educational performance of males and

females in school and their initial destinations after

leaving school. Canberra: Department of Education,

Training and Youth Affairs.

Corak, M. 2013. Income inequality, equality of

opportunity, and intergenerational mobility. Journal of

Economic Perspectives, 27(3), 79-102.

Davis-Kean, P. E. 2005. The influence of parent education

and family income on child achievement: the indirect

role of parental expectations and the home

environment. Journal of family psychology, 19(2),

294.

De Los Reyes, A., & Kazdin, A. E. 2004. Measuring

informant discrepancies in clinical child research.

Psychological assessment, 16(3), 330.

Dearden, L., Machin, S., & Reed, H. 1997.

Intergenerational mobility in Britain. The Economic

Journal, 47-66.

Dickson, Matt, Paul Gregg and Harriet Robinson. 2016.

Early, Late or Never? When Does Parental Education

Impact Child Outcomes? The Economic

JournalVolume 126, Issue 596.

Domański, Henryk. 2006. between State Socialism and

Markets: Effect of Education on Incomes in 27

Countries. European Societies, Volume 7, 2005 - Issue

Downey, D. B. 1995. When bigger is not better: Family

size, parental resources, and children's educational

performance. American sociological review, 746-761.

Du, Huimin. 2017. Rich dad, poor dad: the impact of

family background on educated young people’s

migration from peripheral China. Journal of Youth

Studies, Volume 21, 2018 - Issue 1

Escobar, Laura De Pablos and María Gil Izquierdo. 2014.

Intergenerational educational and occupational

mobility in Spain: does gender matter?. British

Journal of Sociology of Education, Volume 37, 2016 -

Issue 5

Gillies, Val and Rosalind Edwards. 2006. A Qualitative

Analysis of Parenting and Social Capital: Comparing

the Work of Coleman and Bourdieu. Qualitative

Sociology Review. Volume II, Issue 2 – August 2006.

Goldenberg, C., Gallimore, R., Reese, L., & Garnier, H.

2001. Cause or effect? A longitudinal study of

immigrant Latino parents' aspirations and

expectations, and their children's school performance.

American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 547-

582.

Gugushvili, Alexi. 2016. Intergenerational objective and

subjective mobility and attitudes towards income

differences: evidence from transition societies. Journal

of International and Comparative Social Policy;

Volume 32, 2016 - Issue 3

Grusec, J. E., & Hastings, P. D. (Eds.). 2014. Handbook of

socialization: Theory and research. Guilford

Publications.

Gustafsson, Jan-Eric and Kajsa Yang Hansen. 2017.

Changes in the Impact of Family Education on Student

Educational Achievement in Sweden 1988–2014.

Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research.

Haeringer, G., & Klijn, F. 2009. Constrained school

choice. Journal of Economic theory, 144(5), 1921-

1947.

Halsey, A.H. 2013. Reflections on education and social

mobility. British Journal of Sociology of Education,

Volume 34, 2013 - Issue 5-6

Hanushek, E. A. 1989. The impact of differential

expenditures on school performance. Educational

researcher, 18(4), 45-62.

Harvey, E. A., Fischer, C., Weieneth, J. L., Hurwitz, S. D.,

& Sayer, A. G. 2013. Predictors of discrepancies

between informants’ ratings of preschool-aged

children's behavior: An examination of ethnicity, child

characteristics, and family functioning. Early

childhood research quarterly, 28(4), 668-682.

Hartas, Dimitra. 2014. Parenting for social mobility?

Home learning, parental warmth, class and educational

outcomes. Journal of Education Policy, Volume 30,

2015 - Issue 1

Hauser, R. M. 1971. Socioeconomic background and

educational performance (Vol. 2). American

Sociological Association.

Higginbottom, G. M. A. 2004. Sampling issues in

qualitative research. Nurse Researcher (through

2013), 12(1), 7.

Höppner, Grit. 2017. Rethinking Socialization Research

through the Lens of New Materialism.

Hypothesis and

Theory Journal, September 2017, Volume 2.

Irene Y.H. Ng. 2014. Education and intergenerational

mobility in Singapore. Educational Review , Volume

66, 2014 - Issue 3, pages 362-376.

James, W. 1975. Pragmatism (Vol. 1). Harvard University

Press.

BICESS 2018 - Borneo International Conference On Education And Social

594

Johnson, Paul A. 2010. Intergenerational dependence in

education and income. Applied Economics Letters,

Volume 9, 2002 - Issue 3.

Karsidi, R. 2005. Sosiologi Pendidikan. Surakarta:

Lembaga Pengembangan Pendidikan (LPP) UNS dan

UPT Penerbitan dan Pencetakan UNS (UNS Press).

Kasser, T., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Sheldon, K.

M. 2004. Materialistic values: Their causes and

consequences. Psychology and consumer culture: The

struggle for a good life in a materialistic world, 1(2),

11-28.

Kappelhoff, Peter and Wolfgang Teckenberg. 2016.

Intergenerational and Career Mobility in the Federal

Republic and the United States. International Journal

of Sociology, Volume 17, 1987 - Issue 1-2

Kilbourne, W., & Pickett, G. 2008. How materialism

affects environmental beliefs, concern, and

environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of

Business Research, 61(9), 885-893.

Kupfer, Antonia . 2012. A theoretical concept of

educational upward mobility. International Studies in

Sociology of Education, Volume 22, 2012 - Issue 1.

Lareau, A. 2011. Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and

family life. University of California Press.

Lena Lindahl. 2011. Do birth order and family size matter

for intergenerational income mobility? Evidence from

Sweden. Applied Economics, Volume 40, 2008 - Issue

Levine, P. B. 2011. How does parental unemployment

affect children’s educational performance?. Whither

opportunity: rising inequality, schools, and children’s

life chances, Nueva York: russell Sage Foundation,

315-358.

Lewis, S. 2015. Qualitative inquiry and research design:

Choosing among five approaches. Health promotion

practice, 16(4), 473-475.

Lulu, Li and Zhu Bin. 2017. Intergenerational Mobility

Modes and Changes in Social Class in Contemporary

China. Social Sciences in China, Volume 38, 2017 -

Issue 1

Magnani, Elisabetta and Rong Zhu. 2015. Social mobility

and inequality in urban China: understanding the role

of intergenerational transmission of education. Applied

Economics, Volume 47, 2015 - Issue 43.

Malloy, Liam C. 2015. Loss aversion, education, and

intergenerational mobility. Journal of Education

Economics, Volume 23, 2015 - Issue 3

Moore, Rob and John Trenwith. 2006. The

Intergenerational Dimension of Credentialisation and

its Implications for Vocational Change in Education.

Journal of Education and Work, Volume 10, 1997 -

Issue 1

Pietro, Giorgio Di and Peter Urwin. 2010.

Intergenerational mobility and occupational status in

Italy. Applied Economics Letters, Volume 10, 2003 -

Issue 12

Portes, A., & MacLeod, D. 1996. Educational progress of

children of immigrants: The roles of class, ethnicity,

and school context. Sociology of education

, 255-275.

Portes, A., & Hao, L. 2004. The schooling of children of

immigrants: Contextual effects on the educational

attainment of the second generation. Proceedings of

the National Academy of Sciences of the United States

of America, 101(33), 11920-11927.

Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. 2005. Introduction: The

second generation and the children of immigrants

longitudinal study. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28(6),

983-999.

Rabovsky, T. 2011. Deconstructing School Choice:

Problem Schools or Problem Students?. Public

Administration Review, 71(1), 87-95.

Rege, M., Telle, K., & Votruba, M. 2011. Parental job loss

and children's school performance. The Review of

Economic Studies, 78(4), 1462-1489.

Robinson, Phillip. 1986. Beberapa Perspektif Sosiologi

Pendidikan, Jakarta: Rajawali Pers

Schmid, C. L. 2001. Educational achievement, language-

minority students, and the new second generation.

Sociology of Education, 71-87.

Sgier, L. 2012. Qualitative data analysis. An Initiat.

Gebert Ruf Stift, 19-21.

Sik, Domonkos. 2014. Critical Theory and Political

Socialization. Belvedere Meridionale XXVI. 4. 56–63.

Smith, Kevin B. 2016. Class Structure and

Intergenerational Mobility from a Marxian

Perspective. The Sociological Quarterly, Volume 22,

1981 - Issue 3.

Stamatopoulou, M. Symeonaki, G and C. Michalopoulou.

2016. Intergenerational educational mobility in

Greece: Transitions and social distances.

Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods,

Volume 45, 2016 - Issue 6.

Suen, L. J. W., Huang, H. M., & Lee, H. H. 2014. A

comparison of convenience sampling and purposive

sampling. Hu Li Za Zhi, 61(3), 105.

Tongco, M. D. C. 2007. Purposive sampling as a tool for

informant selection. Ethnobotany Research and

applications, 5, 147-158.

Tverborgvik, Torill; Lene Björk Clausen, Brian Larsen

Thorsted , Sigurd Mikkelsen and Elsebeth

Lynge.2013. Intergenerational Educational Mobility in

Denmark. Scandinavian Journal of Educational

Research, Volume 57, 2013 - Issue 5

Webb, Sue, Ann-Marie Bathmaker, Trevor Gale, Steven

Hodge, Stephen Parker and Shaun Rawolle. 2017.

Higher vocational education and social mobility:

educational participation in Australia and England.

Journal of Vocational Education & Training, Volume

69, 2017 - Issue 1

Zhan, M. 2006. Assets, parental expectations and

involvement, and children's educational performance.

Children and Youth Services Review,

28(8), 961-975.

Zhan, M., & Sherraden, M. 2003. Assets, expectations,

and children’s educational achievement in female-

headed households. Social Service Review, 77(2), 191-

211

Socialization of Pragmatic and Materialistic Value in School Selection, and Intergenerational Mobility in the Surakarta City

595