Sociological theories Education Flashcards
Sociological theories of education
Functionalism : Emile Durkheim
Say there are two main functions of education
- Creates social solidarity
Invokes trust, prevents state of nature Anarchy Lawlessness
Transmits culture Passes on norms and values E.g. Teaching history connects students to shared heritage Promoting social integration Creating ‘collective conscience’
Turns children into ‘social beings’ School is ‘society in miniature’ (Interacting with non-family members Rules of behaviour/engagement Socialisation)
- Specialist skills
Modern economies require specialist skills
There is a division of labour Post-industrial Everyone on the production line has different skills which they have been taught
Cooperation between specialists Working together towards common goal = social solidarity also Different specialists respect others as they have skills that others do not to work together
Functionalism : Talcott Parsons
Education is a ‘focal socialising agent’ It is the bridge between the family and society
At home there are different parents rules for different children E.g. Oldest son Vs Youngest daughter rules Etc.
In society rules are Universal and Impersonal
This is the same in education – Bridge E.g. Same rules for all Same uniform Same exam questions Same pass mark
In wider society Status is gained through achievement E.g. Promotion or dismissal
It is similar in school - Bridge E.g. Exam pass or exam fail
This is called meritocracy
Meritocracy – Power, rank, influence and rewards gained via individuals according to their individual merit An equal opportunity for all Less focus on ‘ascribed status’ More focus on ‘achieved status’
Functionalists believe education system is a meritocracy
Functionalism : Kingley Davis and Wilbert Moore
Say education is a device for selection and role allocation (future work roles) E.g. Through exam results and qualifications
They did identify some inequalities in our society However they actually said this is necessary to ensure that the most talented people take on the most important roles E.g. It would be dangerous for a less able person to take on a role which involves peoples lives For example a pilot or a surgeon
The truth is is not everyone is equally talented Some are more talented than others Therefore it is important that higher rewards (pay) is offered for challenging roles to attract these most talented people
Therefore education is ‘proving ground’ for those people with great abilities and talents As the most talented will gain the highest qualifications and will go on to have the most challenging and highest paid future work roles
Functionalism : Peter Blau and Otis Duncan
Prosperity (success) in modern economies is a product of human capital (workers skills) Meritocratic education (Parsons) helps to allocate the best roles to the best possible workers (Davis and Moore) Maximising productivity (If people are in correct roles for them They will be happy and productive) and therefore Maximising prosperity
Criticisms of functionalism
Equal opportunities in education may not exist – Differences in achievement based on class, ethnicity, gender – No meritocracy despite efforts by many governments Criticism of Parsons
Melvin Tumin criticise Davis and Moore
Melvin Tumin – How do we know a job is important?
Davis and Moore – It is highly paid
Melvin Tumin – Why are some jobs more high paid than others?
Davis and Moore – Because they are important
Melvin Tumin found this circular argument was an issue
While Functionalists argue education instils the values of a whole society (Durkheim) Marxists would criticise this by saying education only instils the values of the ruling class (Bourgeoise M/c - education M/c habitus Class differences in education)
Dennis Wrong say
Functionalists have an over-socialised view of students By believing they passively absorb information Are blank slates/tabula rasa Never push back or rebel Saying education is a one-way process Not the case
The neoliberals/ New right argue the state education system does not prepare students adequately for work as functionalists claim – State control discourages efficiency, competition, choice
Neoliberalism / new right
Neoliberalists / new right similar to functionalists ‘Extreme functionalists’ - Believe not everyone is equally talented (Davis and Moore) Believe in meritocracy Say education is geared towards preparing people for the world of work (Parsons) (Davis and Moore) Believe education socialises people into shared values E.g. competition Instils a sense of national identity E.g. By teaching British values (Durkheim) (Parsons)
The key difference is neoliberal/ New right do not believe education is achieving its goals They are worried about this
The ‘one size fits all’ approach (National curriculum) is problematic as it imposes uniformity and disregards local needs
Consumers (Parents and students) have no say
Argue the education system is inefficient – Wastes money Achieves poor results Demands little of teachers Ultimately results in a poor economy
Neoliberalism/ new right solution : Marketisation of education
By turning education into a market It would force schools to compete for customers (Parents and children) This will force schools to improve Increasing diversity of schools available E.g. free schools Academies will give consumers more choices This increases efficiency and saves money
Neoliberalism/ new right : John Chubb and Terry Moe
Claim American state education has failed Therefore it needs to be opened up to market forces – Claim disadvantaged groups have been badly treated by state education As state education had failed to create equal opportunities, Claim state education is inefficient as it does not train pupils for work, Claim private schools are better because they are answerable to consumers (If parents with children in private school do not like their child’s education they can simply stop paying fees Private schools have to stay top of their game to keep their students and get money for their school)
Compared achievements of 60K pupils from low-income backgrounds in state schools Vs private schools The pupils in private schools did 5% better This 5% increase was due to More market, More efficiency, Power to consumers
Chubb and Moe argued that guaranteed funding for schools by government should end Instead each parent should be given a voucher to spend on education at start of academic year This will force schools to compete for vouchers as their main source of funding
Neoliberal/ new right : State irreducible functions Retained roles
- State publishes a framework for schools to operate within E.g. OFSTED produce inspection reports and league tables
- State imposes a national curriculum to ensure students share in the same culture/heritage Creating social solidarity Affirming national identity E.g. British history Christian values
Neoliberal/ new right in this sense oppose multicultural education
Evaluation of neoliberal/ new right perspective
Competition between schools arguably only benefits M/c as M/c possess the knowledge of how education system works And they are thus able to gain access to better schools (Bourdieu capital)
Social inequality and poor school funding could be to blame for low achievement rates
Parental (consumer) choice VS national curriculum This is a potential contradiction Choice vs strict rule
Marxists say Education imposes culture and identity of M/u/c Not shared culture and identity
Marxism : Louis Althusser
Say there are two tools with which the Bourgeoise – M/u/c Maintain their power
The repressive state apparatus – The monopoly of violence The threat of its use Can use physical coercion (force) : Police Army Courts
The ideological state apparatus – Maintain rule by controlling people ideas, values, beliefs : Religion Mass media Education
Education is an important part of the ISA Ideological State Apparatus
It creates and reproduces class inequality by : Imposing the culture of the ruling class on each generation of W/c students
It makes class inequality appear acceptable by : Persuading W/c to accept and ‘know their place’ in society
Marxism : Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis
Capitalism needs a workforce of demoralised individuals who are willing to accept : Hard work Low pay Long hours Orders from above
The role of education is to reproduce inequality and teach individuals to accept it as inevitable and unchanging
Bowles and Gintis studied New York high schools : Found traits E.g. Submissiveness and compliance were rewarded, however traits E.g. Independence and creativity were actually punished This teaches obedience and discipline from a very young age
Conclusions from study : Schooling creates obedient workers for capitalism It does not foster personal development Bowles and Gintis also identified parallels between schools and the workplace E.g. hierarchies. They called this the ‘correspondence principle’ As relationships and structures within schools correspond with those of the workplace This principle operates within the hidden curriculum (Implicit teaching) Lessons learnt in school not directly taught
Marxism : Paul Willis ‘The lads’
Learning to labour study :
Study of 12 W/c boys referred to as ‘the lads’ These lads had formed a subculture against school They made fun of the good kids and the girls
School for them was seen as boring and meaningless So they broke the rules E.g. smoking and drinking They rejected the idea that they could succeed as W/c kids Their attitudes were very similar to those of male manual workers who see manual work as superior and Intellectual/ non-manual work as inferior and effeminate
Students become accustomed to boredom and finding ways to distract themselves They will use these strategies at work as manual labour is Basic Boring Repetitive As their acts of rebellion ensure they will end up in these low paid unskilled manual work By ensuring their failure to gain worthwhile qualifications
By resisting school beliefs and values They are destined to fulfil the roles needed by capitalism This is a self-fulfilling prophecy
Ultimately the lads would have ended up in W/c roles either way : If they followed school rules They would have failed anyway as they are W/c OR by not following rules they gain no qualifications Damned if they do Damned if they dont
Criticisms of Marxist perspective
In post-Fordist economy A different kind of labour force is needed to the one Bowles and Gintis describe – More emphasis on Individual skills E.g. Adaptibility and resilience
Seems to assume students have no free will – Not all students passively accept being ‘programmed’ or indoctrinated However Willis showed how even when W/c students push back against indoctrination They are still sadly destined to fail and end up in W/c jobs
Albert Halsey :
Marxists criticise education however they fail to provide an alternative
Education systems in countries that claim to be communist follow similar functions
Marxists take ‘class first’ approach Failing to consider intersectionality Role of E.g. gender or ethnicity
