Sociology: theories on education
Functionalist persective on education
Solidarity and specialist skills
Parson's view on meritocracy
- sees school as a focal socialising agency acting as bridge between family and the wider society
- school and wider society judge us on universalistic standards e.g. law applies to everyone just like in school.
- parson sees school as preparing us to move form family to the wider society - both based on meritocratic values
Davis and moore: role allocation
- both see school as a device for selection and role allocation and focus on the relationship between school and inequality
- they argue thhat inequality is needed to ensure that the most important roles are allocated to the most talented e.g surgeon - this will increase competition
- similarly, peter and otis argue that the economy depends on using human capital. education system enables such persons top be allocated to the best job suiting their abilities
AO3 - Functionalist perspective
- ignores inequalities in education e.g working class boys, ethnic minorities underperforming
- marxists argue education in capitalist society transmits the ideology of a minority - the ruling class
New Right perspective on education
- Conservative view incorporating neoliberal economic ideas
- new right dont believe the current system of education is achieveing these goals (fucntionalism)
- reasons for its failure is that its run by the state
- solution = to introduce an education market - believe competition will increase diversity and efficiency increasing school's ability to meet the needs of their pupils
- chubb and moe - state run education in us has failed because it hasnt created equal opportunities and failed disadvantaged groups
- to introduce market into state education, chubb and moe propose a system in which each family would be given a voucher to spend on buying education from a school of their choice
- this would force school to be more responsive to parents wishes since vouchers = school's main source of income
Marxists perspective - Bowles and Gintis
- bowles and gintis - there is a correspondence principle between education and workspace acting as a mirror for the world of work
- wc - school prepares them for their future roles in low paid, low status employment
- mc - encouraged to think of their future as owners of the means of production
- e.g of correspondence principle - hierarchy of education resembles workforce - employees respect authority w/o question.
- similarly, pupils are taught throughout education to not question authority so that when they arrive in workplace to be oppressed, thy do not challenge their opression.
AO3 - bowles and gintis
- criticised by post modernists - today's society, there's no need for passive workers to do alienating jobs as the fragmentation of economy allows workers who can apply specialist skills to variety of subjects
Marxist perspective - Althuser
- education system acts as an ideological state apparatus
- Althuser - this reporduced the ideology that society is equal and not based on exploitation of proletariat
- education system does this by using meritocractic tests to determine ability
- proletariat pupils believe educational success is innate and everyone has opportunity to succeed by trying hard and getting a good job (meritocratic values)
- as a resuly proletariat do not look to overthrow capitalism thus protecting it's safety.
AO3 - Althuser/idelogical state apparatus
- functionalist argue that inequality in edcation is inevitable
Bowles and gintis - schooling in capitalist america
- capitalism requires a workforce with attitudes, behaviour and personality style suited to their role as alienated workers willing to accept hard work and low pay from the above
- this = role of education for bowles and gintis
- Study of 237 NY High school students:
b&g conclude that schools rewards precisely the personality traits that make for a submissive worker
- found that students that showed independence tended to gain low grades, whilst those with characteristics linked to obedience gained high grades.
Myth of meritocracy
- Unlike Parsons, b&g argue meritocracy does not exist
- main factor determining someone has high income is family and class background not ability/educational achievement
- disgusing this fact, myth of meritocracy justifies privileges of higher class, making it seem they gained them through competition
- helps persuade wc to accept inequality as legitimate = less likely to overthrow capitalism
AO3 - New Right perspective
Gerwitz and Ball - comp between schools benefits the middle class who can use their cultural and economic capital to gain access to more desireable schools