Theories of Education's Role in Society

Think about why you're actually in school - is it to help you succeed, or is there something bigger going on? Functionalists reckon education benefits everyone by creating social unity and preparing you for work. Marxists argue it's all about keeping wealthy people in control. Neoliberals believe the free market should run education like a business.

Functionalism sees society as different parts working together, held together by shared values. Emile Durkheim argued that schools create social solidarity by teaching shared culture - like learning British history to feel part of the nation. School acts like a mini-society where you learn to work with people outside your family using the same rules that apply to everyone.

Talcott Parsons focused on how school bridges family and society. At home, you're judged by different standards than your siblings, but at school everyone sits the same exam. This prepares you for a meritocracy - where success comes from talent and effort, not who your parents are.

Key Point: Functionalists believe education gives everyone equal opportunities to succeed through hard work and ability.

Functionalist Role Allocation and Criticisms

Davis and Moore argued that inequality is actually necessary - you wouldn't want an unqualified person performing surgery on you! Education acts like a sorting system, identifying the most talented people for the most important jobs through role allocation.

However, these theories face serious criticism. Many job skills are learned on the job, not in school. There's loads of evidence that your class background matters more than ability when it comes to educational success.

Critics argue that functionalists ignore how education might actually reinforce capitalist ideology rather than shared values. Dennis Wrong pointed out that students aren't passive - they often reject school values and create their own cultures.

The biggest issue? Equal opportunities in education are heavily influenced by your family's wealth and social class, not just your natural talent.

Reality Check: If education was truly meritocratic, wouldn't we see more working-class students at top universities?

Neoliberalism and the New Right Approach

Neoliberalism treats education like a business transaction. These theorists argue that state-run schools fail because they're inefficient monopolies that don't respond to what students and parents actually want.

The New Right combines conservative politics with free-market economics. They believe people should meet their own needs through market competition rather than relying on government services. This leads to support for marketisation of education - turning schools into competing businesses.

Chubb and Moe studied 60,000 students and found that those from low-income families performed 5% better in private schools. They proposed giving families education vouchers to spend at any school, forcing schools to compete for customers like businesses do.

The New Right supports two key state roles: providing information (like Ofsted reports) so parents can choose wisely, and ensuring schools teach a shared national curriculum to maintain British cultural identity.

Think About It: Would turning schools into businesses really improve education, or just benefit families who can afford the best options?

New Right Solutions and Criticisms

The voucher system would make schools compete for students by offering better education. Schools would have to attract 'customers' or lose funding - just like private businesses improving their products to stay competitive.

However, the New Right faces major contradictions. They support parental choice while simultaneously wanting government to impose a compulsory national curriculum on all schools. They also oppose multicultural education, preferring to emphasise British traditions and Christian worship.

Gerwitz and Ball found that school competition actually benefits middle-class families who have the cultural and economic capital to access better schools. Working-class families often lack the knowledge, contacts, or resources to navigate school choice effectively.

Critics argue that low educational standards come from social inequality and underfunding, not state control. The system doesn't create a shared national culture - it imposes ruling-class values while devaluing working-class and minority cultures.

Reality Check: School choice might sound fair, but does everyone really have equal access to choose?

Marxist Views on Education and Capitalism

Marxists see education completely differently - as a tool to keep wealthy capitalists in power. Karl Marx described society as divided between the bourgeoisie (owners of businesses and land) who exploit the proletariat (workers who only have their labour to sell).

This creates potential for class conflict - if workers realise they're being exploited, they might demand better conditions or even overthrow capitalism. Education prevents this revolution by controlling how people think.

Althusser argued the state uses two methods to stay in power: Repressive State Apparatuses (police, courts, army) that use force, and Ideological State Apparatuses (schools, media, religion) that control ideas and beliefs.

Education serves capitalism by reproducing class inequality - failing working-class students generation after generation. It also legitimates inequality by promoting ideologies that make people accept their position as natural and deserved.

Critical Question: Does your school actually challenge inequality, or does it convince you that academic failure is your own fault?

The Hidden Curriculum and Correspondence Principle

Bowles and Gintis studied American schools and found they reward obedient, punctual students while penalising independent, creative ones. Schools basically train compliant workers who'll accept low pay and follow orders without question.

The correspondence principle shows how school mirrors workplace hierarchies. Headteachers give orders like bosses, students compete like workers, and everyone learns their place in the system. This happens through the hidden curriculum - all the unofficial lessons about authority and obedience.

They argue meritocracy is a myth designed to make inequality seem fair. Your family background and social class matter far more than ability when determining your future income and success.

Education acts as a 'myth-making machine', convincing people that if they're poor or unsuccessful, it's because they didn't work hard enough - not because the system is rigged against them.

Think About It: How often do you follow school rules without questioning whether they're actually fair or necessary?

Criticisms and Counter-Evidence

Paul Willis challenged Marxist ideas through his study of working-class 'lads' who created an anti-school subculture. These students rejected school values, mocked academic achievers ('ear'oles'), and celebrated their own counter-culture of smoking, drinking, and disrupting lessons.

Ironically, this rebellion led them straight into manual jobs - exactly what the system wanted. Their resistance actually confirmed their position in the class structure, showing how complicated the relationship between education and social control really is.

Postmodernists argue that Bowles and Gintis' theory is outdated. Modern education is more child-centred and diverse, with better provision for disabled students, ethnic minorities, and immigrants. Today's employers often want creative, independent workers rather than passive followers.

Critics point out that Marxist theories treat students as passive victims who can't resist indoctrination. Many working-class pupils do excel academically, proving that class determinism isn't absolute.

Key Insight: Students aren't just empty vessels - they actively interpret and sometimes resist what schools try to teach them.