Education key studies/sociologists

• Durkheim - functionalism, role of education


  • social solidarity - shared experiences

  • same basic education = equal opportunities

  • e.g. uniform, taught same curriculum

  • socialised into value consensus
• Critique: Durkheim - functionalism, role of education

  • Marxists - argue that it is indoctrination into dominant ideology (capitalism), not socialisation

  • feminists argue it is indoctrination into patriarchy
• Parsons - functionalism


  • meritocracy - everyone given equal opportunities, individuals achieve rewards through own effort and ability

  • taught achieved status: primary school = stickers as rewards, secondary school = exam results
• Critique: Parsons - functionalism


  • private school + inheritance - higher classes have more opportunities regardless of meritocracy/grades/working hard

  • Bowles + Gintis - myth of meritocracy - not everyone is equal due to inherited wealth + ascribed status
• Durkheim - functionalism, specialist skills


  • vocational education introduced by Margaret Thatcher

  • societal niches e.g. medical school

  • ensures individuals play their part in social division of labour with specialist skills

  modern industrial economics requires people with specialised skills
• Critique: Durkheim - functionalism, specialist skills


  • educational inflation - people getting qualifications but there aren't enough jobs = skills might not be that useful

  • apprenticeship not funded properly

  • skills shortages: worsened by Brexit, e.g. builders, plumbers, carers
• Davis + Moore - functionalism


  • role allocation

  • fair inequality - given jobs based on ability and people accept that

  • social inequalities are necessary to ensure important roles are filled by most talented people e.g. surgeon, pilot
• Critique: Davis + Moore - functionalism


  • Tumin - circular argument - how do we know that a job is more important? Because it is highly rewarded. Why are some jobs higher rewarded? Because they are more important

  • feminists - gender roles allocated e.g. girls netball, boys rugby

  • Marxists - capitalist biased towards U/C - glass ceiling: jobs that are traditional done by upper class get allocated to upper class: reinforces class divide
• Althusser - Marxism


  • education = most prominent ideological state apparatus

  • ruling class ideology passed through education

  • W/C forced to fail and take low status jobs

  • R/C 'go top of the pile' because of education - have the money/access to opportunities e.g. private school

  • Have cultural capital over W/C

  • Social class inequalities reproduced
• Critique: Althusser - Marxism

  • learn capitalist ideology through more than just education - family, media

  • theory suggests W/C are passive and can't do anything to control their fate

  • Willis - shows not all W/C are controlled by ISA - 'lads' anti-school subculture
• Bowles + Gintis - Marxism


  Correspondence principle = school mirrors the work place, prepares W/C for capitalist explotation

  Hidden Curriculum: correspondence principle works through this. Unspoken values taught - taught hierarchy

  Myth of meritocracy = not everyone has equal opportunities due to inherited wealth + ascribed status
• Criticism: Bowles + Gintis - Marxism


  Feminists - ignores that patriarchy is reproduced as well as capitalism

  Willis argues B&G take a too deterministic view -reject that school brainwashes pupils
• Willis - Marxism


  W/C boys anti-school subculture

  Lads actively chose to fail - cared about being with friends over education

  Not passive in the system
• Criticism: Willis - Marxism

  Non-representative - 12 boys, 1 school

  Critiques of participant observations + group interviews
• David - social policy, marketisation


  Parentocracy

  Due to marketisation policy, parents have the knowledge + power to choose what school to sent their children to

  Critique: use Gewirtz, Bartlett, Gilbourn + Youdell
• Chubb + Moe - social policy - New Right


  Schools need more marketisation, should move towards the private sector

  Critique: use Gewirtz and Bartlett
• Gewirtz - social policy, marketisation


  Myth of parentocracy

  Privileged skilled choosers - M/C, understand the system, skilled at choosing the right school

  Disconnected local choosers - W/C, didn't understand school system, could only really choose local school
• Bartlett - social policy, marketisation


  silt-shifting: good schools = selective, choose students who high + achieving (likely M/C) + will improve league table

  cream-skimming: good schools avoid less able pupils who are likely to get poorer results and damage the schools league table
• Young - social class - (ef)


  intellectual development

  M/C mothers - more likely to choose toys to encourage thinking + reasoning

  W/C homes lack activities to stimulate intellectual development - books, puzzles
• Critique: Young - social class (ef)

  Material deprivation leads to lack of toys, not mothers

  Feminists - where are the fathers? (1967 study)
• Bernstein - social class (ef)


  Language codes

  Restricted = w/c = culturally deprived, less developed vocab

  Elaborated = m/c = cultural capital, developed vocab, used in schools
• Criticism: Bernstein - social class (ef)

  Only two codes

  Troyna and Williams
• Sullivan - social class (ef)


  cultural capital

  questionnaire - 465 pupils, 4 schools

  Assessed their cultural capital - asked about activities e.g. reading, TV

  Complex fiction + serious documentaries = higher cultural capital = m/c + successful GCSEs

  Greater resources + aspirations of m/c families explain class gap in achievement
• Criticism: Sullivan - social class (ef)

  Small sample - not representative/generalisable

  Keddie
• Bourdieu - social class (ef)


  Cultural + economic capital = no good on their own, need both

  e.g. no good winning the lottery and being able to send child to private school if you have restricted speech code

  need both for successful education
• Criticism: Bourdieu - social class (ef)

  If you have the material capital, and can send children to private schools, they will still get high quality education, so does cultural capital (e.g. restricted speech codes) matter?
• Sugerman - social class (ef)


  Features of a lower class subculture - prevent high educational achievement

  Fatalism - don't believe they can change their future, leave it to fate

  Collectivism - value being part of a group more than successful education

  Immediate gratification - living for the now, don't think about the future

  Critique - Keddie
• Keddie - social class (ef)


  Myth of cultural deprivation

  It victim blames children for being born into poverty

  W/C have different culture, they're not culturally deprived
• Troyna + Williams - social class (ef)


  problem = school's attitudes, not parents

  speech hierarchy - teachers under value W/C due to their speech being labelled lower than M/C
• Tanner - social class (ef)


  hidden costs of schooling - equipment, uniform, school trips

  harder for W/C to afford

  creates social divide

  
  

  Critique: compensatory education - pupil premium
• Howard - social class (ef)


  Diet: healthy food = expensive, poor nutrition = poor health = absence + poor concentration

  Housing: damp housing = chest problems, overcrowding = can't concentrate on work, mental health problems

  
  

  Critique: free school meals
• Rist - social class (if)


  Labelling:

  US kindergarten - children placed in groups based on address

  M/C - tigers - front row, given attention

  W/C - clowns - back row, no attention

  Labels students inappropriately
• Critique: Rist - social class (if)

  Labelling = deterministic, assumes labels are accepted - Fuller: ambitious black girls reject labels

  Marxist - problem is structures, not individual teachers

  One school = small sample - not representative
• Rosenthal + Jacobson - social class (if)


  field experiment

  Labelling:

  gave all students ability test

  selected 20% at random, told teachers they were gifted

  47% of 'gifted' students made significant progress compared to peers

  experimental group = 20%, control group = everyone else

  Findings - effect of teachers' behaviour towards gifted students

  Self-fulfilling prophecy due to labelling

  
  

  Critique:

  Field experiment critiques
• Hempel Jorgensen - social class (if)


  Labelling:

  2 English primary schools - M/C vs W/C

  Ideal pupils:

  W/C - defined by behaviour, education = crowd management

  M/C - defined by academic ability, education = pushes students academically
• Critique: Hempel Jorgensen - social class (if)


  Unrepresentative - small sample

  Labelling - deterministic, assumes labels accepted
• Fuller - social class, ethnicity (if)


  Labelling:

  study of Black girls in Y11, comprehensive school

  Black girls placed in low streams

  These girls were ambitious, high achievers + rejected labels
• Gilbourn + Youdell - social class (if)


  Streaming:

  A-C economy

  schools focus on that can pass to look good on league tables (link to marketisation)

  Educational triage:

  - hopeless - more likely W/C, self-fulfilling prophecy

  - borderline A-C - students that get most attention

  - going to pass anyway
• Critique: Gilbourn + Youdell - social class (if)


  neglects pupils rejecting labels

  lower ability sets supported rather than neglected
• Lacey - social class (if)


  Subcultures:

  teachers differentiate students into different streams based on ability

  more able students = higher status

  lower streams = lower status = mainly W/C - create anti-school subcultures

  Students gain status through anti-school subcultures + reject school values