Theories Of Education Flashcards
Bowles and Gintis
Marxism
The correspondence principle and the hidden curriculum
Marxist such as Bowles and Gintis (1976) agree with the functionalist who see a close relationship between school and the world of work. Where Bowles and Gintis differ is that they see the education system as being controlled by capitalist and serving their interests, whereas functionalists see education as benefiting society as a whole. According to Bowles and Gintis, for capitalism to run efficiently it needs workers who are passive, obedient to authority and hardworking. They see schools as preparing pupils to be just that: obedient, exploitable workers for capitalist businesses. Bowles and Gintis developed the ‘correspondence principle’ from a study of high school children in the USA, and found that how schools are organised and run is mirrored in the world of work. This similarity creates new generation of workers ready to be exploited by capitalist business
How school mirrors work:
~ Hierarchy:
Work - there is a hierarchal structure in the workplace. Workers obey managers
Schools - schools teach the acceptance of hierarchy of authority, teachers give the orders and pupils obey
~ Rewards:
Work - workers are motivated by wages rather the satisfaction of the job itself
Schools - pupils are motivated by the external rewards of exam success rather than interest in the subject
~ Alienation:
Work - workers lack control over production or what goes on at work
Schools - pupils have no control over the educational curriculum
~ Fragmentation:
Work - work is fragmented into small meaningless tasks
Schools - knowledge is fragmented, or broke into small pieces, subjects are unconnected to each other
~ Conformity:
Work - workers who challenge authority, or are lazy or not punctual, are often dismissed or not promoted
Schools - conformist pupils (those who are obedient, hardworking and punctual) are awarded higher grades than those who challenge authority
Bowles and Gigi’s argue that the correspondence principle is taught through the hidden curriculum, that is not explicitly taught but informally learnt during everyday lessons and the workings of the school, eg, emphasis on punctuality, obedience, pupil acceptance of authority, rewards and so on
The myth of meritocracy
According to Bowles & Gintis, the education system sells the view that it works on meritocratic principles, that is, that everyone has an equal chance of doing well in life (eg, those who get the highest qualifications get the best-paid jobs). This makes people accept their educational failure and low wages as fair and justified (‘I didn’t work hard enough’ or ‘I wasn’t clever enough’); it provides an explanation. Bowles & Gintis see the idea of meritocracy as a myth: people are conned into believing that success or failure is based on merit whereas in reality their class background determines how well they do in education. Therefore, the education system legitimates class inequalities in society because it prevents people from recognising their exploited position, and, in particular, prevents working-class people from rebelling against the capitalist system
Role allocation
Bowles & Gintis reject the functionalist view of role allocation, ie, that education allocates the most talented people, through the meritocratic process, to the most important and best-paid jobs in society. Their research found that students with high grades tend to be hardworking and obedient, rather than non-conformist, or creative thinkers. This would support their view that the education system rewards those who conform to the qualities required of the future workforce, ie, to be subordinate, obedient and disciplined
Schooling in capitalist America
Bowles and Gintis (1976) conducted a study of 237 New York students and found that schools reward the kind of personality traits that make for a submissive, compliant worker. For example, they found that students who showed independence and creativity tended to get low grades, while those who showed characterises linked to obedience and discipline (eg punctuality) tended to get higher grades. Bowles and Gintis concluded that the capitalist system creates an education system which stunts student’s development
Evaluation
~ Postmodernists argue that Bowels and Gintis’ theory is outdated. Society is a lot more child-centred than it used to be. Education reflects the diversity of society, there are more provisions for disabled pupils, pupils of colour, and immigrants
~ New Right argue that the correspondence principle may not be as applicable in today’s complex labour market, where employers increasingly require workers to think to meet labour demands rather than being passive
Louis Althusser
Marxism
The ideological state apparatus
Althusser (1971) believed that no class cold stay in power just by force, but ideology is much more effective form of social control. He suggested the state consisted of two elements which serve to keep the ruling class in power.
1) the repressive state apparatuses (RSAs), which maintain ruling class power by force, eg police/army.
2) the ideological state apparatuses (ISAs), which maintain ruling class power by controlling people’s ideas, values and beliefs, including through religion, media and education.
Althusser believed the education system was an important ISA and that it performs two functions.
1) education reproduces class inequality by failing each successive generation of working class pupils.
2) education legitimates (justifies) class inequality by producing ideologies (sets of ideas and beliefs) that disguise its true cause. The function of ideology is to persuade workers to accept that inequality is inevitable and that they deserve to subordinate position in society. If they are taught to aspect these ideas then they are less likely to challenge or threaten capitalism
Evaluation
~ Functionalist views - agree with the Marxist ideas, but suggest that they are beneficial for society
~ Limited empirical evidence for Althusser’s ideas
~ Postmodernists would suggest education is one way of expressing ability in contemporary society
~ Deterministic - more children from manual labour backgrounds going into HE than even before - still only 9%
Davis and Moore
Functionalism
Role allocation theory
Davis and Moore talk about allocation, meaning that the education system shifts and sorts people into the social hieararchy which is linked to the idea of meritocracy. So the idea is that people are able to access the best jobs, wealth and status, because they have alent or because they have worked hard. It’s not to do with other social structues such as class, ethnicity or gender, because according to the functionalst, all th other social structures, and in to benefit and support the education system. So for Davis and Moore, the ducation system as a way of sorting people to the best possible position that they sho9uld have in society. And that is based upon a meritocratic sysytem, you get there because of hard work you get there because of talents. It is not linked to your social strucutes, such as class, ethnicity or gender
Evaluation
~ A Marxist criticism of this is that social stratification - or inequality - is precisely what means the education system manifestly fails to grade people by their ability or effort. Instead, the wealthy and powerful have all manner of advantages which the education system reinforces. Overwhelmingly the children of those with high-paid jobs leave the education system with the better qualifications and go on to get high-paid jobs themselves. This is not meritocracy, but instead the reproduction of inequality. The myth of meritocracy is what allows the rich to get away with entrenching their privilege and serves to convince everyone else that the process is fair
~ It is also not clearly the case that those who get the best qualifications do necessarily go on to get the highest incomes. Factors. Such as social class also come into play here. Some people are able to access high salaries without good qualifications, thanks to family connections, while at the same time there are high levels of graduate unemployment and underemployment
Emile Durkheim
Functionalism
Social Cohesion
Durkheim didn’t really spend a lot of time thinking or talking about education, but he did say that education was key in the socialisation process, and there are particular key and secondary agents of socialisation. So what he’s suggesting here is that the family, the caregivers, the immediate people ans groups surroundings a child provides primary socialisation, they teach them the essentials of society, the norms and the values and the ways of behaving. In the home and then when they go to school, they are reinforced through the education system. So adding to the socialisation, it reinforces the positive socialisation for society, and maybe negates some of the more negative norms and values that might be more familial or sub cultural to society. Durkheim believes that this is a really important element of the education system in order to maintain social cohesion
Evaluation
~Marxists question where these shared values come from and whose interests they serve. They don’t accept that there are a set of neutral norms and values that are best for everyone in society. Instead, as we shall see the in the next section, they argue that the powerful in society use education to spread their ideology
~There are a number of ways in which Durkheim’s ideas about education could now be considered outdated. First, it imagines a society where a value consensus is possible and desirable. Postmodernists would argue that contemporary society is diverse and multicultural, and schools do not produce a shared set of norms and values for the whole of society and nor should they. Furthermore, other sociologists point out that the contemporary economy is no longer based around assembly lines and therefore the education model that Durkheim describes may not suit the modern economy. Furthermore, some question whether schools ever really provided adequate training for work, noting that for most jobs the knowledge-based learned at school is of limited usefulness and much more specific skills are taught through in-work training
~ Hargreaves (1982) has argued that the education system encourages individualism and competition rather than social solidarity and shared values. Educational norms discourage collaborative learning (instead seeing it as cheating or copying) and instead encourages individuals to try and beat each other: the opposite of social solidarity
Talcott Parsons
Functionalism
Meritocracy
Parsons sees the education as playing the role of socialising individuals into accepting the shared values of a meritocratic society. Firstly, this means that everyone achieves their place in society through their own efforts and abilities, rather than through any inherit status. Secondly, very individual is given an equal opportunity to achieve their full potential without bing discriminated against on grounds of social class, ethnicity or gender. Therefore, the education system teaches pupils to understand the values of achievement and of equal opportunity. Parsons sees the school as a miniature version of ‘society’, as both are meritocratic. In school, individuals, succeed or fail depending on their own ability and effort. This prepares the, for life in modern society and its economy, which is competitive and individualistic
Education teaches Universalistic values
Parsons (1961) argues that school helps prepare us for society by moving us from particularistic to Universalistic values. Particular values are taught during primary socialisation within the family, in which parents treat their children as if they are special regardless of their achievement. Society cannot act in this way but must function on Universalistic values: everyone has to be treated equally. Students must learn that success and achievement does not depend on where you come from or how you know, but on individual merit. Learning these Universalistic standards enables students to more easily make the transition from particularistic values (family) to Universalistic values (society) which are essential for cooperation
Evaluation
~ Marxists criticise the functionalist view of role allocation and ‘shifting and sorting’ arguing that the appearance of meritocracy is nothing but ideology. They call this the myth of meritocracy. They argue that the proletariat are persuaded to believe that the rich and powerful reached their positions through their hard work and natural ability rather than because of their privileged birth because this then leads them to accept inequality as fair. They argue instead that class inequalities are reproduced in the next generation and that the education system plays a key role in this. As such they argue that the myth of meritocracy plays an important part in developing a false class consciousness
Schultz
Functionalism
Human Capital
Schultz believes that the education system developing human capital. He suggests is that investment in education, benefits the wider economy and this therefore, benefits society as a whole, and creates that cohesive nature. Because a society with a stable economy has less social conflict, there’s less barriers between different groups within society. Schultz argues that the education can provide properly trained, qualifies and flexible workforce and ensure that the skills necessary for a society to continue and to get better and move forward, the best place for that to happen is within the education system. This development of human capital means that it allows every person within the society to have a place have a an appropriate role to play that fits them, they are of benefit to society
Evaluation
~ Education is not linked to job skill. It is difficult to see a direct link between the subjects studied at school and what is required of workers in their jobs. It could be argues that beyond basic standards of literacy and numeracy, and university courses in a few subjects, such as law or medicine, most formal education is not closely related to the skills required for an efficient workforce. This would suggest that education does not necessarily equip people for future work roles
Chubb and Moe
New Right
Consumer choice
Chubb and Moe (1990) argue that the state-education had ailed in the US because it hasn’t provided equal opportunity and failed the needs of disadvantaged kids. It’s unproductive because it fails to produces pupils with the skills needed for an efficient economy. Private schools - deliver higher quality because they are accountable to the consumers (parents). These findings were based on a comparison of the achievements of 60,000 pupils from low income families in 1,015 state and private high schools, together with the findings of a parent survey and case studies of ‘failing’ schools apparently being ‘turned around’. Their evidence shows that pupils from low-income families consistently do about 5% better in private schools than in state schools. Chubb and Moe propose an education system in which each family would be given a voucher to spend on buying education from a school of their choice. This would force schools to become more responsive to parents’ wishes, since the vouchers would be the schools main source of income. Like private businesses, schools would have to compete to attract customers (parents) by improving their schools. However, whilst they believe the control over education should be given over to the consumer - they believe the state has some roles in the education system. The state should impose a framework on schools within which they have to compete, e.g. by publishing Ofsted inspection reports and league tables of school’s exam results. The state therefore is giving the parents the information to make an informed choice over which school to pick for their children. Additionally, the state should ensure that schools transmit a shared culture. By imposing a single National Curriculum, it seeks to guarantee that schools socialise pupils into a single cultural heritage. New rights believe the curriculum should serve to: emphasise Britain’s positive role in world history, teach British literature and to integrate pupils into a single set of traditions and cultural values. The new right therefore oppose multi-cultural education that reflects cultures of different minority groups in Britain
Evaluation
~ Competition between schools benefits the middle class more as they have the knowledge and finances to make informed choices and access the more desirable schools
~ Marxists would argue that duration does not socialise us into a shared culture, but a culture that is dominated by the ruling class
~ Critics argue that the real cause of low educational standards is not state control, but social inequality and inadequate funding of state schools
Pierre Bourdieu
Marxism
Cultural capital
Bourdieu (1977) examined the role ‘culture’ plays in the education system. He argues that the education system (teaching, books, exams and the language they employ) embody very middle- and upper- class cultural values (literature, music) rather than those of working class. Working class pupils do not possess the cultural capital (ideas, language, tastes, values and lifestyle associated with a particular class) required for success. This means that middle class pupils will generally do better than working class pupils. This makes the school an institution that ensures middle class dominance from one generation to the next
Evaluation
~ Functionalists suggest that education is meritocratic
~ Socialised into value consensus - skills are needed to achieve
~ Students acquire cultural capital throughout their education
Ivan Illich
Marxism
Deschooling
Schools are repressive institutions which promotes conformity and encourage students into passive acceptance of existing inequalities and the interests of the powerful, rather than encouraging them to be critical and to think for themselves. Schools do this by rewarding those who accept the school regime with qualifications and access to higher education. Illich suggest the only way to deal with this is to abolish schooling altogether - deschooling
Paul Willis
Marxism
Learning to labour
Neo-Marxist sociologist Paul Willis (1977) used qualitative research (observations and interviews) to study 12 working class boys (the lads) through their last 18 months at a comprehensive school and their first few months of work. Willis did not find that the lads were brainwashed by the education system into conforming to the norms and values of the school (hard work, conformity and obedience to authority). Therefore, Willis rejects Bowles and Gintis’ rejection of meritocracy and disputes the hidden curriculum. What he did find was that the lads developed an anti-school culture, resists and rejecting the norms and values supported by the school. They rejected the meritocratic ideology that claims working class pupils can get on through hard work. Willis found:
~ The counter-school culture. The lads formed an anti-school culture. They disobeyed the school’s rules (smoking, disrupting classes, truancy, sexism and racism). For the lads, such acts of defiance were ways of resisting the school’s authority
~ Workplace. Willis followed the lads into their first jobs which were unskilled manual jobs, often in factories, where he found a shop-floor culture of male manual workers similar similar to the anti-school culture. They both involved lack of respect for authority, sexism and racism and ‘havin a laff’ to cope with boring and tedious work over which they had little control
For Willis, the irony is that the lads’ rejection of the school’s ideology and their anti-school culture guarantee that they will fail at school,thereby ensuring that they end up in the manual work that capitalism needs someone to perform. Thus, their resistance to school ends up reproducing class inequality since they ended up in working class jobs
Evaluation
~ Willis’s research is outdated. A limitation of Willis’s research study is that the study was carried out over thirty years ago and so is now outdated. With the decline in manual work, attitudes to education among working class males have become more positive: they may not reject school as often today as they did in the past. Furthermore, his study of only 12 boys in one school is unlikely to be representative and therefore generalisations from the findings need to be treated with caution
Sue Sharpe
Feminism
Attitudes towards education
Sharpe (1976) conducted research comparing working class female aspirations in the 1970s and again in the 1990s (Sharpe 1994). In the 1970s, most young women were focused on ‘love,marriage, husbands and children’. This changed by the mid-1990s when young women were becoming increasingly ‘wary’ of marriage
Francis
Feminism
Link between work and education
Francis (1999) argues that the schooling process reinforces and reproduces gender identities, fitting in at school often involves adopting gender-appropriate behaviour linked to gender stereotypes. School reinforce gender identities and patriarchal relations through gendered verbal behaviour: boys dominating classroom talk, belting girls’ contributions and the use of terms of sexual abuse for girls
One perspective is working class women saw leaving school early as an escape. Employment raised their status within the family so many were motivated to find work. Francis (2011) haas strongly noted that there is an issue with young women having aspirational poverty. For Francis, aspirational poverty presumes men will leave high ranking managerial positions and quietly become administrators and secretaries. This position was called into question by some, who questioned whether Francis was arguing it was female aspirations which had become problematic. But rather, Francis seemed to be arguing, in an obscure way, that girls outperform boys in the education system. This win does not correlate to greater advantages in terms of career and pay. It seems the qualities which are rewarded in the education setting are not those which are rewarded in the workplace. This is clear when we look at female success. Francis concluded that the education system does not seem to adequately prepare women for the work world, masculine boardrooms and an environment where aggressiveness is often rewarded
Evaluation
~ Gender is not only explanation for differences in achievement, social class and ethnicity remain important factors
Kelly
Feminism (radical)
Gendered subject image
Gender and subject choice are influenced by various factors, including the gendered subject image. Kelly, a renowned sociologist, argues that certain GCSE and A level subjects have a specific gendered view, which leads to their being perceived as either “boy subjects” or “girl subjects.” For instance, Kelly maintains that science is viewed as a subject for boys due to the predominance of male teachers and illustrations that emphasize boys’ interests, such as sports. Moreover, the gender that dominates a class may also influence the subject’s gender image; for example, girls tend to dominate in drama and the art world, while boys dominate in PE. The experience of a subject, including the gender of the teacher and the dynamics of the group, can shape one’s perception of whether it is a subject for girls or for boys. While some subjects are neutral and attract an equal number of male and female students, most subjects show a gender divide
Gender stereotyping in schools
Schools socialise children into gender roles. Girls are stereotyped as being more emotionally mature than boys. They are also seen as quiet and docile, while boys are seen stereotypes as being emotionally immature and dominant. Gender stereotyping teaches girls to be submissive and boys to dominate. Kelly (1987), while exploring textbooks, found women were often portrayed to be reliant upon men or, such as in the case of many science textbooks, women were completely absent
Evaluation
~ Radical feminists recognise how the hidden curriculum, normalises gender violence in schools, influences subject choice and perpetuates inequalities
