Assess The Contribution Of Functionalist Sociologists To Our Understanding Of The Role Of The Education System In Society

Assess the contribution of functionalist sociologists to our understanding of the role of the education system in society (20) Ferne bryan
Functionalism is a structuralized theory which says the individual is less important compared to society. They say we’re a part of a complex system where various parts work together to benefit the whole. E.g. The human body; there are some organs more important than others but they all work together to help the human body function properly. Functionalists say there are three main roles of education; social solidarity, role allocation and specialist skills. Social solidarity is promoted by socialising children from one generation to the next the core norms and values of society; the two most important said by Durkheim was equal opportunity and value of achievement. This means we all have the same chances to succeed or not and we should all value doing well in education to achieve a higher position in society. Durkheim also says that these norms and values will allow social order and cohesion which will help society work smoothly. Functionalists describe the education system as a microcosm which is like a mini society; this prepares us for the ‘real world’ and work after we leave. It teaches us how to live in a hierarchy and to obey the rules given to those of higher authority. Primary and secondary socialisation is used to help prepare us for family and work life. As Parsons says, education acts as a bridge between family and society. One example of social solidarity in schools is the teaching of the academic subject history as it teaches students about previous battles and wars of a united group and for us to be less selfish. We should work together as a unit and view society as more important than individuals which history encourages. Another function that education promotes is role allocation. This says that school is a meritocratic system which means those who put the most effort in, have motivation and have the most talent will gain status, power and money in the future by getting the best jobs and the highest positions in society. For example, if you do well and work hard you will gain a promotion at your work as if you don’t put the effort in you’ll get fired. Davis and Moore said the purpose of school was to sift and sort us into the jobs and professions we’d work best for in society when older. They argue that inequality is needed and is inevitable in society for it to work smoothly as by having a hierarchy this will promote competition for people to gain the best jobs. Parsons says we find our appropriate roles in school in a meritocratic formation which allows us to achieve status which is very fair. Lastly, there’s specialist skills which argues that education helps teach us these skills so we can all work together. This is due to the complex division of labour which is where we work together potentially globally to create a single item or means of production. We have to rely on each other to create production and school helps teach us the skills so we can play apart in the social division of labour. However, there are criticisms to the functionalist theory of the role of education in society. Dennis Wrong says functionalists wrongly imply that all pupils are passive and will follow norms and values without questioning them. However, not all pupils will comply to these rules and this is a very idealistic view of the functionalists. We’re not mere puppets to society and we can make our own decisions and choices; we don’t have to agree with the schools or societies for that matter, norms and values. In the end, it’s up to us as individuals. Tumin argues the circular argument. E.g. how do we know a job is important? Because it is highly rewarded. Why are some people more rewarded than others? Because their jobs are more important. This is implying that it just goes round and round and there is no answer to anything, we just have to obey. When the theory is actually questioned functionalists fail to come up with valid answers. Functionalists are also criticised for the vocational system or the YTS (youth training scheme) as this only exploits people for cheap labour, it never prepares them for a happy career, it just prepares them to be taken advantage of as they have no power or qualifications to argue back or get a job. Lastly, it is argued that class, gender or ethnicity has a bigger influence over ability when it comes to success, plus, not all students will internalise the same norms and values due to these three factors. The Marxists don’t agree with the functionalist view of the role of education in society as they argue the role of education is for the bourgeoisie to exploit the proletariats. (the capitalist class to take advantage of the working class). They do this through two elements one of which is the repressive state apparatus. This is where the police, courts and army maintain the rule of the bourgeoisie, even by force is needed. The other is the ideological state apparatus which is where the capitalist class brainwash and control people’s ideas, beliefs and values. They argue education reproduces class inequality so that the rich stay rich and the poor get poorer. They also teach pupils that inequality is needed so that they accept they’re at the bottom of the hierarchy as it is ‘inevitable’ for society. Bowles and Gintis argue that education is there to reproduce an obedient workforce who will not question that inequality is needed. School also prepares us for society and long term work as it has a hierarchy within the school (head teacher, teachers, pupils etc.) so that we’ll be obedient when we leave. They also argue that meritocracy is a myth as all it does is promote inequality which isn’t fair at all. Meritocracy is meant to mean we all have the same opportunity to succeed however; this only serves the higher classes and persuades the lower classes to not try and succeed and to just stay at the bottom of society which contradicts the idea of meritocracy. The willis ‘lads’ culture study could be evidence for this. There were a group of 12 working class boys who rebelled against the school values and the ear’oles who were the opposite to the lads. This was an anti-school sub culture which rejected the idea of meritocracy as a con. They knew they weren’t going to succeed so they didn’t see the point in trying to. However, to further criticise post modernists argue that school is now diverse, not unequal. Also, there are working class or people who are considered at the bottom of the hierarchy who do achieve such as the Mary Fuller’s girls who channelled anger into success and rejected the schools values but still succeeded which goes against the idea of determinism as Bowles and Gintits suggests.
Ferne bryan