Functionalist Perspectives on Education
Ever wondered why schools have uniforms, assemblies, and strict timetables? Durkheim believed these weren't just random rules – they're designed to create social solidarity and teach you the skills you'll need as an adult.
According to Durkheim, schools mirror wider society by teaching British values and social norms through everyday activities. You learn specialist skills like punctuality, respect for authority, and following rules – all essential for the workplace. Think about it: arriving on time, wearing the right clothes, and following instructions are basically job training in disguise.
Parsons took this further, arguing that school acts as a bridge between family life and work life through secondary socialisation. While your family teaches you basic values, school fills in the gaps and prepares you for professional expectations. He believed schools were meritocratic – meaning everyone gets equal opportunities to succeed through hard work and effort.
Key Point: Functionalists see education as society's way of preparing young people for adult responsibilities and maintaining social order.
Davis and Moore focused on role allocation – essentially how education sorts people into different career paths. They argued that high-achieving students oftenmiddle−class get guided towards professional jobs, while lower-achieving students get directed towards manual work. This isn't seen as unfair, but as society efficiently matching people to suitable roles.
However, critics point out serious flaws in these theories. Durkheim ignores how class, gender, and ethnicity affect educational experiences differently. Parsons' idea of equal opportunities is challenged by overwhelming evidence of inequality in schools. Marxist theories particularly challenge functionalism, arguing that education actually maintains class divisions rather than providing fair opportunities for all.