The Role of Education in Society

• Functionalism: Durkheim


  Social Solidarity- individuals must feel as though they are a part of a 'single body', as without this social cooperation isn't possible as people will act on their own desires. Education helps by transmitting society's culture (shared norms and values) across generations. Arguing the teaching of a country's history instils a sense of shared heritage and commitment to the wider social group. School acts as 'society in miniature' as we must interact according to a set of universal, impersonal rules.
• Functionalism: Durkheim 


  Specialist Skills- modern industrial economy has a complex division of labour; production of an item requires the cooperation of many social skills, helping to promote social solidarity. For it to be successful, each person must have specialist knowledge and skills to perform their roles- education teaches individuals this to enable them to perform their role in the social division of labour.
• Functionalism: Parsons 


  Meritocracy- sees school as a 'focal socialising agency' which acts as a bridge between the family and wider society; as they operate on different principles. Within the family, child is judged by particularistic standards and their status is ascribed (fixed) at birth. In school and wider society, we are judged by universalistic and impersonal standards, and a persons' status is achieved through their own personal efforts. Schools prepare through basing their assessments on meritocratic principles- dependent on effort and ability.
• Functionalism: Davis and Moore


  Role Allocation- by assessing individuals' aptitudes and abilities, schools help to match people's jobs to what they are best suited to. Arguing social inequality is necessary to ensure the most talented roles are filled by the most talented people- it would be inefficient and dangerous if not. Not everyone is equally as talented, so society offers higher rewards for these jobs which encourages competition so those selected are the best. Education provides a ground for ability, through gained qualifications.
• Functionalism: Blau and Duncan 


  Human Capital- argue that modern economy depends on its prosperity using human capital (the workers' skill); arguing that due to it being meritocratic, the education system allows the person to be allocated to the job they suit best- making more effective use of their talents and maximising productivity.
• Evaluations of Functionalism

  Neoliberals and New Right argue that the state education fails to prepare young people adequately for work, arguing that the 'one size fits all' approach isn't appropriate, and that schools aren't answerable to their consumers which has resulted in lower standards of achievement. This results in a less qualified workforce and a less prosperous economy.
• Evaluations of Functionalism

  Tumin criticised Davis and Moore for proposing a circular argument- how do we know a job is important? It is then answered by it being highly rewarded. By why are some jobs highly rewarded? Because they are important. This then doesn't explain how a job is deemed important.
• Evaluations of Functionalism

  Marxists argue that education in a capitalist society only transmits the dominant class ideology (the minority), that being the ruling class. Education then doesn't instil shared values.

  Interactionist, Wrong argues that Functionalists have an 'over-socialised view' of people as mere puppets to society; this wrongly implies that pupils will passively accept all they are taught, and never reject the values of the school.
• The New Right

  Conservative political view which incorporates neoliberal economic ideas. The central belief is that the state cannot meet people's needs, it would be best if they were left to meet their own needs through a free market. They favour the marketisation of education- claiming that the 'one size fits all' approach has imposed uniformity and disregarded local needs, consumers then have no say.
• The New Right

  The state education system is unresponsive and inefficient- schools that don't spend their money smartly and get poor results aren't answerable to their consumers. This causes lower standards of achievement, and a less qualified workforce causing a less prosperous economy.
• The New Right: Solution

  The marketisation of education- creating an 'education market' which instils competition between schools, and empowers consumers. They believe that this will bring greater diversity, choice and efficiency for schools; increasing their ability to meet the needs of the pupils, parents and employers.
• The New Right: Chubb and Moe


  Consumer Choice- argue that state-run education in USA has failed due to not producing pupils with the skills needed for the economy. Private schools deliver high quality education because they are answerable to their consumers- they found that low-income family pupils consistently do 5% better in private rather than state schools.
• The New Right: Chubb and Moe


  Consumer Choice- they claim that there should be a market system where control is given to consumers; allowing them to shape schools to their needs. This then improves quality and efficiency. Proposing each family should be given a voucher to spend on buying education from their school of their choice- forcing schools to be responsive as the vouchers are their main source of income. They would then have to attract costumers by improving their 'product'- these practices are already present in the private sector.
• The New Right: The Two Roles of the State

  Though New Right emphasise the importance of market forces, they do see the state as having roles too. First is imposing a framework on schools where they must compete- like publishing of Ofsted reports and league tables. Secondly, the state ensures schools transmit a shared culture through imposing the National Curriculum- it guarantees students are socialised into a single cultural heritage, ensuring education affirms the national identity (they then oppose multicultural education).
• Evaluation of The New Right

  Gerwitz and Ball argue that competition between schools only benefits the middle class who can use their cultural and economic capital to gain access to more desirable schools.

  Marxists argue that education doesn't impose a shared national culture, it imposes the culture of the dominant minority ruling class, and devalues all other cultures via exclusion.
• Evaluation of The New Right

  Critics argue that the real cause of low educational standards isn't state control, but social inequality and insufficient funds to state schools.

  There is a contradiction between their support for parental choice, but their support for imposing a compulsory National Curriculum on all its schools.
• Marxism: Althusser 


  The Ideological State Apparatus- Marxists see the state as a way in which the ruling class maintain dominance. It has 2 elements to serve the bourgeoisie's power: the RSA- through force or threat of it (police, courts, army) using physical coercion to repress the working class; and the ISA- through controlling ideas, beliefs and values (the media, religion, education).
• Marxism: Althusser 


  The Ideological State Apparatus- Education system performs 2 roles: it REPRODUCES class inequalities by transmitting it through each generation (failing each successive generation of working class pupils); and LEGITIMATES class inequality by producing ideologies which disguise its true cause (persuading workers that inequality is inevitable and their subordinate position is deserved)- if they accept, they are less likely to overthrow and rebel.
• Marxism: Bowles and Gintis 


  Schooling in Capitalist America- argue that capitalism requires a workforce with attitudes, behaviours and personality-types suited to their role of alienated and exploited workers; willing to accept low standards and obey. Education reproduces this workforce; their study of 237 NYC high school students found that schools rewarded specific behaviours which make a submissive and compliant worker like being punctual; creativity and independence resulted in lower grades. School doesn't foster personal development, it stunts it.
• Marxism: Bowles and Gintis 


  The Correspondence Principle- Arguing that there are close parallels between the school and work in a post-capitalist society. Both have hierarchies where students are made to obey. They argue that this principle operates through the hidden curriculum.
• Marxism: Bowles and Gintis


  The Hidden Curriculum- all the 'lessons' that are learned in school without being directly taught. Simply through the everyday workings of the school, students become accustomed to accepting hierarchies and competitions, and working towards extrinsic rewards. The school then prepares the working class for their role as exploited workers- needed for capitalism to thrive, which perpetuates class inequality.
• Marxism: Cohen


  The Hidden Curriculum- argues that youth training schemes serve capitalism by not teaching youth genuine job skills, but by teaching them the attitudes and values needed for a subordinate labour force- this lowers their aspirations, meaning they accept low paid work.
• Marxism: Bowles and Gintis 


  The Myth of Meritocracy- a capitalist society is based on class inequality, though there is a danger that the poor may feel it is unjustified and unfair, causing them to rebel and overthrow. The Education System prevents this by legitimating class inequality- producing ideologies that explain and justify why inequality is fair. One myth is meritocracy; claiming people who receive rewards deserve these.
• Marxism: Bowles and Gintis 


  The Myth of Meritocracy- they argue the main factor which determines individuals' success is their family and class background, not their personal efforts. By disguising this, it justifies the privileges of the upper classes, making them seem as if their rewards were from success in open and fair competition. This persuades the working class to accept their inequality as legitimate. Justifies poverty through the 'poor are dumb' ideology- blaming poverty on the individual and not capitalism reduces the chance of an overthrow.
• Marxism: Willis


  The Lads' Counter-Culture: using qualitative research, Willis studied 12 working class boys as they transitioned from school to work. They formed a distinct counter-culture which opposed the school; found it meaningless, they then flouted its rules and values, and they disliked conformist students ('ear'oles'). These acts of defiance are ways of them resisting the school, as they reject that the working class can succeed through meritocracy.
• Marxism: Willis


  The Lads' Counter-Culture: them resisting the school links to the shopfloor culture of male manual workers- seeing manual work as superior, and intellectual work as inferior and effeminate. They identify strongly with masculine work, hence they see themselves as superior to girls and 'effeminate' conformists who aspire to achieve non-manual jobs.
• Marxism: Willis


  The Lad's Counter-Culture: their response explains how capitalism helps them to fit into low paid jobs: they are accustomed to boredom so don't expect work satisfaction, they have found diversions to cope with repetitiveness of unskilled labour, and acts of rebellion ensure they will gain lower qualifications. The irony is that through rejecting the schools ideology, they become vital in the capitalist workforce, and are destined to remain there.
• Evaluation of Marxism

  Postmodernists criticise the Correspondence Principle, claiming that today's post-Fordist society requires schools to produce a different kind of labour force- seeing education as now reproducing diversity, not inequality. We now require a skilled, adaptable workforce who can work with advancing technologies. This way, the education system now enforces self-motivation and creativity; technological changes makes existing skills obsolete.
• Evaluation of Marxism

  Marxists disagree on how reproduction and legitimation takes place. Bowles and Gintis take a deterministic view, assuming pupils have no free-will and will passively accept indoctrination. This approach fails to explain why many pupils reject the school's values. Willis rejects this idea of brainwashing and argues that the ways in which the working class reject the ideology causes their working class position.
• Evaluation of Marxism

  Critics argue that Willis' account of the lads romanticises them, portraying them as working class heroes, despite their anti-social behaviour and sexist attitudes. His study is idiographic, it is unlikely to be representative of other pupils experiences, conclusions are then limited.

  Feminists argue that schools also reproduce patriarchy as well as capitalism- and not that females were largely absent from Willis' study
• Evaluation of Marxism

  Critical Modernists such as Morrow and Torres argue that it takes a 'class-first' approach, it only sees class as they key in equality and ignores all others. Like Postmodernists, they argue society is more diverse. Seeing non-class inequalities like ethnicity, gender and sexuality as equally important. Arguing sociologists should explain how education reproduces all types of inequalities, and how they are inter-related.