Education: Theories AO3 Flashcards
Evaluation of Durkheim’s social solidarity and specialist skills functions
-Too Idealistic-Functionalists like Durkheim claim education promotes unity, but Marxists argue it transmits the dominant ideology of the ruling class, reinforcing inequality rather than solidarity.
-Cultural Diversity Ignored-Durkheim assumes schools pass on shared norms and values, but in modern multicultural societies, not all students share the same culture, which can lead to alienation instead of unity.
-Ignores Ethnic Inequality-Ethnic minorities may face racism, stereotyping, and lower expectations, which challenges the idea of education promoting equal social integration.
-Over-Socialised View-Wrong criticises Functionalists for seeing students as passive recipients of values, ignoring their ability to think and act independently.
-Student Resistance-Willis’ study of the “lads” shows that working-class boys rejected school values, formed anti-school subcultures, and didn’t learn the skills or norms schools intended — contradicting the idea of social solidarity and skills development.
-Specialist Skills Not Always Taught-Critics argue many students leave school without the skills needed for employment, and education isn’t always closely linked to the needs of the economy (especially in a post-industrial society).
Evaluation of parsons - socialisation and meritocracy
-Cultural Capital (Bourdieu)-Parsons sees schools as meritocratic, but Bourdieu argues middle-class students have an advantage because they possess the cultural knowledge and language schools value, giving them symbolic capital.
-Teacher Bias-Teachers may judge students based on class, ethnicity or gender — this means universalistic standards aren’t truly applied, and working-class or minority students may be unfairly treated.
-Ignores Gender Inequality-Feminists argue that schools reflect and reproduce patriarchy, with different expectations and outcomes for boys and girls, challenging the idea of equal opportunity.
-Ignores Ethnic Inequality-Ethnic minority students often face institutional racism, exclusions, or lower sets, again undermining the claim of meritocracy.
-Cultural Diversity Ignored-Parsons assumes education promotes a shared culture, but critics say schools often ignore or devalue other cultures, contributing to cultural exclusion rather than inclusion.
-Over-Socialised View (Wrong)-Again, assumes students accept school values without question. In reality, students may resist or challenge school norms.
Evaluation of Davis and Moore- Role allocation functions
-Cultural Capital (Bourdieu)-Role allocation isn’t based solely on ability — middle-class students succeed more because their background matches what schools value.
-Teacher Bias-Bias in setting, streaming, or discipline means that students are not allocated roles fairly, as their success is shaped by subjective judgments.
-Too Idealistic / Legitimises Inequality-Davis & Moore justify inequality by claiming it’s necessary, but critics say this legitimises privilege and hides how the system favours the already advantaged.
-Ignores Gender Inequality-Subject choices and future roles are often influenced by gender norms, not ability, which challenges the fairness of role allocation.
-Ignores Ethnic Inequality-Ethnic minority students may be tracked into lower sets or vocational pathways, limiting their opportunities and future roles.
-Student Resistance (Willis)-The “lads” didn’t get allocated based on merit — they rejected education, yet still ended up in working-class jobs, suggesting that class background, not ability, determined their role.
-Tumin-They assume high pay and status jobs are always the most important E.G hospital cleaners (without them= infection) but footballers get paid thousands more
Evaluation of Althusser- ideological state apparatus
-People are not always passive-Althusser sees individuals as passive recipients of ruling class ideology, but research like Willis (1977) shows that working-class students may reject school values, forming anti-school subcultures that resist the system.
-Assumes a unified dominant ideology-Althusser ignores the reality of cultural diversity and competing beliefs in modern societies, where not everyone accepts or internalises the same ideology.
-Too deterministic-Althusser presents a one-sided view of power, suggesting ideology always controls people. This underestimates human agency and the ability of individuals to think critically or act independently.
`
Evaluation of Bowles and Gintis’s correspondence theory and myth of meritocracy
Education doesn’t reflect the modern workplace-Bowles & Gintis argue school mirrors work through hierarchy and control. However, Brown (1997) found that modern jobs increasingly require teamwork and communication, not passive obedience, weakening the link between school and work.
-Myth of meritocracy is challenged by cultural capital-They argue school legitimises inequality by promoting meritocracy as a myth. While this is insightful, Bourdieu builds on it more effectively by showing how cultural capital reproduces class inequality.
-Overlooks resistance-Like Althusser, they ignore how some students reject authority and school rules (e.g., Willis’ “lads”), meaning the hidden curriculum does not always produce obedient workers.
-Ignores other inequalities
Their focus on class means they overlook how education also reproduces patriarchy (MacDonald, 1980) and ethnic inequality (e.g., through a white, Eurocentric curriculum).
Evaluation of Bourdieu’s ‘cultural capital ‘ and habitus theory
-Explains class-based achievement well-Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital highlights how middle-class students are advantaged because their values and language match the school system. This is a strength compared to other Marxists who focus mainly on economic factors.
-Useful for explaining symbolic power in schools-His ideas of symbolic capital and symbolic violence show how working-class culture is devalued in school, reinforcing inequality in subtle but powerful ways.
-Still quite deterministic-However, like other Marxists, Bourdieu can be criticised for underestimating student agency and assuming that working-class failure is inevitable due to habitus and cultural disadvantage.
-Ignores gender and ethnicity-His theory focuses heavily on class and largely ignores how gender and ethnic background also affect educational experiences and outcomes.
Evaluation of Illich’s (1995) ‘deschooling’
-Too idealistic and impractical-Illich argues schools should be abolished as they serve capitalist control and stifle creativity. However, this idea is unrealistic in practice, and ignores how schools can also be spaces for resistance, social mobility, and personal growth.
-Students don’t always respect teacher authority-Illich sees schooling as oppressive, but many students challenge or ignore teacher authority, supporting the idea that learners are not passive recipients of control.
-Historical context challenges conformity claim-The UK’s long history of trade unionism and worker resistance suggests that schools don’t always produce compliant, docile workers.
Evaluation of Willis’s ‘learning to labour study’
Limited Generalisability-Willis’s study is based on only 12 white working-class boys from the 1970s, so it can’t be generalised to all students or schools today.
-Gender Bias-Willis ignores girls’ experiences in school. Feminist critics like Angela McRobbie argue that this reinforces sexist stereotypes.
-Romanticises the ‘Lads’-Critics say Willis romanticises the “lads” by portraying their behaviour as rebellious heroes, even though it was often sexist and anti-social.
-Ignores Other Experiences-Willis’s study only focuses on students who reject school, neglecting those who conform, succeed academically, or resist in different ways. E.G Fuller (1980) found that a group of black girls in a London comprehensive school resisted negative teacher labels and worked hard to succeed
