Disclaimer- this is taken from the AQA syllabus; views expressed are not my own (especially when it comes to cultural deprivation!!) (and the way gender is treated) (seriously, it's taken me so much to be impartial) (pls pls don't attribute any of these
Class Differences in Achievement
Social class seems to be a factor in educational achievement; generally, middle class students perform better than working class students at GCSE. They also tend to stay longer in full time education, and they're more likely to go to university. Though it could be argued that better off parents can send their children to fee paying schools, which are generally considered to be better, this doesn't explain why children in the same school achieve differently. The sociological explanations for this are divided into two: external and internal factors, also known as outside of education and within education.
Class Differences in Achievement: External Factors
One external factor seen to affect the class differences is cultural deprivation- the concept that those in the working class aren't socialised adequately and are culturally deprived. For example, working class homes may lack the resources- such as books and toys- that would stimulate intellectual development. Middle class families may be more likely to own educational toys (Bernstein and Young), whilst working class families may not engage in educational activities at home (Douglas). Secondly, some sociologists feel that language used by the working class is different, relying more on gestures and single words. Consequently, people in the working class aren't able to use language to it's full extent (Bereiter and Engelmann). This was extended to include the 'restricted code'- used by the working class, and consisting of limited, context-bound vocabulary and grammatically simple constructions- and the 'elaborated code'- wide, complex, abstract and context-free (Bernstein). The working class largely use the restricted code, whilst schools use the elaborate code- making it difficult for working class students to fully participate (Bernstein). Lastly, the working class may have differing attitudes and values. It could be that working class parents aren't interested in education or their children's achievement, leading to lower success (Feinstein), or even that the lower classes have values and beliefs that act as 'self-imposed barriers' to educational success, such as being unwilling to make sacrifices to do well (Hyman). Moreover, one sociologist identified that the working class subculture is fatalistic, collectivist, seeks immediate gratification and is orientated in the present time; consequently, they don't do as well in education (Sugarman). Compensatory education, such as the American Operation Head Start, or the British Sure Start and Education Action Zones, are designed to tackle compensatory education. However, some dub these as a smokescreen, concealing the true issues of poverty and/or material deprivation. A criticism of cultural deprivation is that it blames the victim (Keddie); many working class parents take an interest in their children's education but may be unable to attend things such as parents evenings due to work (Blackstone and Mortimore), and the issue may be less in attitude, and more in the school's response to language variation (Troyna and Williams). The second element in external factors is material deprivation- when someone doesn't have access to physical everyday necessities, such as housing and sufficient food. Many working class families live in difficult housing situations, for example overcrowding (which can make it difficult to do homework, and can also increase risk of accidents) or with issues such as damp. It's also believed that some working class families don't have adequate nutrition, and maybe have a lower intake of things such as energy and/or vitamins (Howard). This can lead to tiredness and increased risk of infections. Some research has also found working class children to be more likely to be affected by emotional and/or behavioural problems (Wilkinson). As well as this, there are the 'costs of free schooling' (Bull)- the costs of things such as equipment, trips and uniform, which can burden some families (Tanner et al). This could limit opportunities. In addition, children may feel the stigma of not having the latest accessories/clothing, so feel that they don't fit in or be bullied (Ridge); the fear of stigma could lead to not accepting Free School Meals when eligible (Flaherty). Lastly, finances could mean that working class pupils must get a part time job, leading to increased stress and less time for school-work (Ridge). There is currently no clear research into the separate and/or dual effects of material and cultural deprivation. However, some sociologists feel that material deprivation carries more weight than cultural factors (Mortimore and Whitty), leading to an increased demand to tackle poverty (Robinson). Next, we come to cultural capital (Bordieu). This theory states that there are three types of capital- economic (money), educational (qualifications) and cultural (ideas, knowledge, values, beliefs etc., generally found in the middle class). Cultural capital gives the middle class an advantage, as children are more intellectual and educationally successful because of it; the education system favours middle class culture, whilst devaluing the working class culture. Types of capital can be converted, for example cultural capital may increase educational success, producing educational capital. Similarly, economic capital may be used to pay for tutoring or send children to good schools, translating into educational capital. Research has also found that house prices in the catchment areas of good schools goes up, making the working class less likely to afford them, and the middle class more likely (Leech and Campos). A test on the theory of capital found that pupils with greatest cultural capital were more likely to be successful at GCSE- though if pupils of different classes had the same cultural capital, the middle class still did better, suggesting other factors (Sullivan). Finally, the introduction of marketisation (an education market) may have benefited the middle class (Gerwitz). A study identified three types of parent- privileged skilled choosers (middle class with economic/cultural capital) who were able to choose good schools and work the system to get the best result; disconnected local choosers (working class with limited economic/cultural capital), who were unable to select or obtain the best school, either due to lack of knowledge or lack of funds, opting instead for schools that were 'safe' or nearby; and the semi-skilled choosers (also mainly working class, with limited economic/cultural capital), who wanted to get their children into good schools, but lacked the abilities to make this happen (Gerwitz). Ergo, middle class families were most able to help their children into good schools, leading to the conclusion that marketisation has maintained (or increased) the educational class division (Whitty).
Class Differences in Achievement: Internal Factors
A label is a meaning or definition attached to someone- for example, labelling a pupil as clever. Research indicates that teachers may label students based on stereotypes and assumptions, instead of their actual ability. One study found that teachers compared students' work, conduct and appearance to an 'ideal' image, with middle class students being closest to the ideal (Becker). Similarly, it was found that some educational counsellors- responsible for putting students onto courses to aid in accessing higher education- assessed students not on ability but class/race (Cicourel and Kitsuse). This also happens in primary school; in one school, children were assigned to groups- the 'tigers', who were the fast learners; 'cardinals', who were in the middle; and 'clowns', who were the slowest learners. The 'tigers' were sat nearer the teacher, and were given more encouragement and chances to show their abilities. They were also more likely to be middle class, and of clean/tidy appearance- indicating that the sorting was done not on ability, but class. Another study was done in a child-centred primary school, where children were left to 'compensatory play' in a Wendy house until they were ready to seek the help to learn; the middle class students started reading earlier, so sought help, whilst the working class students were ignored (Sharp and Green). The theory of labelling can be extended, to include the information that students are given. This looks at 'high status knowledge' (abstract and theoretical) and 'low status knowledge' (descriptive and more commonsense). The 'low status knowledge' was given to students in lower streams (generally working class), meaning they couldn't access more complex knowledge and increasing class differences (Keddie). Streaming in general is affected by so-called notions of ability, which may result in working class and black students being placed in lower streams (Gillbourn and Youdell). Labelling may lead to a self fulfilling prophecy, in which a prediction comes trues just because it's been made. This is said to happen in three steps- the teacher labels the pupil and makes predictions; the teacher treats the pupil based on the predictions; the pupil internalises the expectations, becoming the pupil expected of them. A key study into the self-fulfilling prophecy looked at the effect of choosing pupils as 'spurters' (Rosenthal and Jacobsen). A test was given to students, which supposedly identified those who would 'spurt', though in fact these were chosen at random. A year later, almost half of those identified had made significant progress, with the result more prominent in younger children. This was attributed to the teachers conveying their beliefs to the children through body language, attention and encouragement. The self-fulfilling prophecy can also lead to under-achievement- if a teacher assumes a working class student will do worse, this can become internalised (for example, the student may not see the point in working hard as they feel they will fail), leading to failure. Streaming pupils can cause this, as those in high streams internalise positive expectations, but those in lower streams internalise negative expectations- it's been found that streaming may be linked to IQ changes (Douglas). As most working class students are placed in lower streams, they are more likely to internalise negative expectations. Another internal factor is pupil subcultures, which may result due to labelling and streaming. Streaming can cause differentiation, when pupils are categorised based on teacher's expectations, and polarisation, when students respond to differentiation by moving towards the extremes (Lacey). Those in high streams polarise into a pro-school subculture, where they are committed to school values and strive for educational success. Those in lower streams polarise into an anti-school subculture, losing self-esteem and looking for alternative status. This is found in rejecting the school values, for example truanting. This, in turn, may lead to a further decrease in work. A further study into this area found boys labelled as triple failures, who 'solved' the problem through a delinquent subculture- guaranteeing their failure (Hargreaves). When streaming is abolished, polarisation may vanish, with anti-school subculture influence disappearing. However, differentiation is likely to continue, with teachers still labelling students, meaning class inequalities continue (Ball). Some sociologists argue that there exist more responses than pro and anti school subcultures (Woods). These responses include ingratiaion, retreatism and rebellion. In addition, responses may not be fixed, with students fluctuating between them (Furlong). One criticism of the labelling theory is that it's deterministic- pupils may well succeed despite negative labels. It may also ignore wider contexts, with labels resulting not from individual stigmas but wider class division. The creation of an education market has affected education, with funding formulas, competition and league tables aiding marketisation. League tables are said to have created an 'A to C economy', with educational triage (Gillbourn and Youdell). This is where schools want to get the best league results that they can, so 'triage' students into three groups- those who will fail, those who will pass, and those with potential. The main group focused on is those with potential to ensure that they will pass, with the fate of the other two groups seen as inevitable. As notions of ability are used in this, working class (and black) students are often placed in the failure group, meaning they don't receive the help they need. To achieve good results, schools also want to make sure they select the best students possible, to make themselves look good and attract more good students, resulting in increased funding. As a result, good schools cream skim and silt shift for good pupils (Bartlett). On the other hand, poorer schools can't attract good students, so their league table placing goes down, and funding/good students decrease. Aside from selecting pupils, schools may introduce demanding home/school contracts to ensure committed pupils (Gerwitz). Lastly, schools may aim to create an image with which to attract middle class pupils, for example by re-inventing tradition (Fitz). This is said to have lead to CTCs, intended to offer vocational education to all, becoming another elite establishment (Walford). Such spending on images may come at the expense of other spending (Ball et al), and has been found to occur in Post 16 (Macrae).
Ethnic Differences in Achievement
There are a number of ethnic differences in education. White students and Asian students often do better than black students; Indian students tend to achieve more than Pakistani and Bangladeshi students. Though white students are currently closest to the national average, it's possible that they might become the worst performing ethnic group in the country (Hastings). It's also important to remember that there's variation within groups: students of the same ethnic group but different class and/or gender tend to perform differently.
Ethnic Differences in Achievement: External Factors
There are three main factors regarded as sociologists to externally affect ethnic differences in achievement. The first is cultural deprivation. Some theorists see under-achievement resulting from a lack of intellectual and/or linguistic skills- that low income black families have inadequate language (Bereiter and Engelmann), or that lack of Standard English is a barrier to education/integration (Bowker). However, others argue that language is not a major factor (Swann Report) and point out that Indian pupils tend to do well, even though English is often not their first or home language (Mirza). It may also be that black children have a lack of motivation, or attitudes/values which are fatalistic and don't value education. Thirdly, parental support and family structure could be seen as a factor. Many black families are headed by a lone female, which may lead to inadequate care and financial trouble (Moynihan), as well as a lack of positive male role models (Murray)- potentially causing under-achievement. Other sociologists agree that differences stem from cultural differences outside of education and not factors within in (Flew)- maybe due to not embracing mainstream British culture (Scruton). Another theory is that family structures are responsible. Some family structures may result in higher resistance to racism, with Asian pupils- who are supposedly more resistant to racism, and who weren't so affected by colonialism- having more self esteem than black pupils, who are said to be the opposite (Pryce). However, it may not be self-esteem, but racism itself (Lawrence). To look at family structures more specifically, Asian family structures may bring educational benefits due to positive attitudes towards education in adults (Driver and Ballard), or because adult authority models are similar to those found in schools (Lupton). On the other hand, it may be that Asian families are often stressful and controlling (Khan). There's also emphasis on looking at white working class pupils, who are increasingly reluctant to go to university, compared to ethnic minority students (Sutton Trust). Poor behaviour and discipline in white working class students may be attributed to negative attitudes (Lupton) or to brutal street culture (Evans). Compensatory education such as Operation Head Start has been introduced to try and combat all ethnic differences. However, the cultural deprivation theory is criticised for ignoring positive effects of ethnicity (Driver) and for victim blaming (Keddie), as well as imposing a dominant culture. It may be that what's needed is multicultural education, or anti-racist education. Moving on, material deprivation is also seen as an external factor in ethnic differences in education. Ethnic minorities may be more likely to face material deprivation- for example, Pakistani and Bangladeshi families are more likely to be unemployed and/or in the poorest fifth of the population (Flaherty). Therefore, social class may be the most important factor in achievement, accounting for over 50% of differences (Swann Report)- but the effects of ethnicity cannot be discounted, as differences in achievement are found in pupils of similar social classes but differing ethnicities. Finally, racism in wider society could be a big factor, being a persistent and continuing feature of the experiences of ethnic minorities (Mason). It could cause social exclusion and worsen poverty, for example by discrimination making ethnic minority families more likely to be put into poor housing (Rex). There's also evidence of discrimination in employment (Noon).
Ethnic Differences in Achievement: Internal Factors
Students from different ethnic backgrounds may be labelled differently, for example, with black and Asian pupils being seen as far from the 'ideal' (Becker). Teachers may be quicker to discipline black pupils (Gillbourn), and racialised expectations may cause the behaviour of black pupils to be misinterpreted as threatening/challenging (Gillbourn and Youdell). Black boys in particular may be seen as a threat, leading to exclusions (Bourne); stereotypes around behaviour could also cause them to be places in lower sets (Foster). Asian pupils can also be negatively labelled (Wright), with teachers holding ethnocentric views. They assumed Asian pupils wouldn't grasp English, so left them out or used simple language to speak to them. Some also disapproved of their customs, or mispronounced their names. They didn't see Asian students as a threat, but more a problem to ignore, resulting in marginalisation. Of course, the way pupils respond to labelling can be different- self fulfilling prophecies are not automatic or definite. One study found that black girls were able to reject the negative labels given to them by working hard and channelling labelling anger into educational pursuits (Fuller). They conformed, but only as far as schoolwork, and didn't seek teachers' approval. As a result, they maintained a positive self-worth and achieved high grades. A similar study found the same results, with response to labelling depending on factors such as ethnic group and gender (Mac an Ghaill). However, a separate study found that strategies for rejecting racist labelling can result in under-achievement, due to avoiding racist teachers when selecting options and asking for help, and getting on with work but not getting involved in lessons (Mirza). Three types of racist teacher were identified- the colour-blind, the liberal chauvinists and the overt racists. Other strategies/responses come about through labelling, with boys responding by joining one of four groups- the rebels (minority but most visible; opposed school rules/goals and conformed to 'black macho lad'), the conformists (largest group; aimed to succeed), the retreatists (isolated and disconnected) and the innovators (pro-education but anti-school) (Sewell). Only a small minority fit the stereotype of 'black macho lad', but many are labelled in this way; moreover, negative attitudes may result due to racism. Also, outside factors may be influential, for example with the media promoting the image of the 'tough ghetto superstar' (Arnot). Labelling theory doesn't victim blame, but may blame teachers rather than looking at wider contexts; also, it's important to remember that labelling doesn't automatically mean the self-fulfilling prophecy. Another factor could be that the National Curriculum is ethnocentric (Troyna and Williams), ignoring diversity (Ball) and producing under-achievement by presenting the British as superior, for example in historical studies of colonialism (Coard). However, it ignores Asian culture, but Asian and Chinese students do well; also, black children may not suffer from low self-esteem. Moving on, there can be a distinction in types of racism- individual (prejudiced views of individual) and institutional (built into ways institutions work) (Troyna and Williams). The ethnocentric curriculum is an example of institutional racism, whilst the way governing bodies work may be another (Hatcher). Lastly, marketisation may have disadvantaged some ethnic minority pupils as they aren't seen as desirable (Gillborn), with selection leading to ethnic segregation (Moore and Davenport). Entry procedures may favour the white middle class, with biases such as primary school reports based on stereotypes and lack of information/application forms in different languages (Commission for Racial Equality). Finally, to fully understand achievement differences, class, gender and ethnicity must all be looked at (Evans); for example, masculinity may be constructed differently in different ethnicities (Connolly).
Gender Differences in Achievement
Tests from children starting school have shown that girls tend to do better than boys, with more children identified as having special educational needs being boys. This continues throughout education, with girls tending to do better at all stages. The gap is wider in subjects such as English, but does narrow overall at A levels. In general, the education gap has become wider, especially since the introduction of GCSEs.
Gender Differences in Achievement: External Factors
There are four 'main' accepted external factors in gender difference. The first is the impact of feminism. This has challenged the stereotype of women as a mother and housewife, subordinate and inferior to men as well as being dependent on them. Though it's generally argued that full equality has not yet been achieved, the feminist movement has been responsible for a number of changes, in areas such as rights, laws, expectations and self-esteem. A reflection of this has been found in magazines, which have switched from emphasising the importance of marriage to showing women as assertive and independent (McRobbie). This may have affected self-image and ambition, creating the other changes. The next factor is changes in the family, such as an increase in divorce and cohabitation, and more lone-parent families. This means that more women are financially independent, and may have others dependent on them- requiring a well-paid job, and, therefore, qualifications. Moving on, there have been changes in women's employment, such as the Equal Pay Act, increased women in employment and more women in high-level jobs. This may mean that girls see a future in careers, and not just in marrying and having children. Lastly, general ambitions of girls have changed, with girls now prioritising careers and being able to support themselves (Sharpe), as well as having high ambitions (Francis).
Gender Differences in Achievement: Internal Factors
Equal opportunities policies are seen by some to be a key reason for girls' increased achievement (Boaler). These policies include GIST and WISE. Changing beliefs about achievement may also have been a contributory factor, as well as the implementation of the National Curriculum, meaning that most subjects are studied by all- this could be particularly key in science education (Kelly). There's also been an increase in positive female role models within schools, with more female teachers and headteachers, meaning that girls can see such jobs as accessible. Another factor is the introduction of GCSEs and coursework, which coincided with the sharp increase in the gender gap (Gorard). It may be that girls do better in coursework, due to attributes such as being more organised, taking more care with presentation and meeting deadlines successfully (Mitsos and Browne). However, exams tend to have more weighting on final grades, so coursework is unlikely to be the sole factor (Elwood). It's also been found that teachers interact more with boys (Spender), though this increase may be made up of reprimands (French and French). Attention given to boys is often more negative (Francis); though boys attract attention due to being boisterous, the attention given to girls is more positive (Swann & Graddol). Gender differences in communication are also apparent, with girls being better at turn taking and small group work (Swann). Ergo, teachers may respond more positively to girls, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy for both genders. Next, it's been found that the curriculum has become less stereotyped; previously, reading schemes often showed women in traditional domestic roles (Lobban), and physics books showed girls as amazed or frightened by science. These may have changed, and teachers may be better at challenging stereotypes (Weiner). However, others say that reading schemes haven't changed (Best). Finally, marketisation may have aided girls, as they're seen as desirable and therefore selected by schools (Jackson); boys are more likely to be excluded and to have behavioural difficulties, so may be less attractive (Slee). Overall, there are two main views on girls' achievement- that of the liberal feminists, who celebrate the progress made whilst striving for more, and that of the radical feminists, who take a more critical view, seeing education as being embedded in the patriarchy- for one, sexual harrassment within schools continues, and areas such as history remain 'women free' (Weiner).
Boys and Achievement
Recently, there's been concern about boys falling behind in education, with several reasons proposed. The first states that the gender gap is largely due to literacy (DCSF)- maybe because parents spend less time reading with their sons. Boys also tend to partake in activities such as football and gaming, which involve little communication when compared to girls' 'bedroom culture'. Policies such as the National Literacy Strategy and the Reading Champions scheme have been introduced to tackle boys literacy. Another theory proposed is that globalisation has decreased the employment of traditional male jobs such as shipbuilding, engineering and manufacturing (as these jobs have been moved elsewhere), causing men to have an 'identity crisis' and feeling disheartened about education and qualifications (Mitsos and Browne). However, these jobs tended not to need qualifications anyway, so probably this factor isn't large, or effective at all. Education is criticised for becoming 'feminised', with boys being 'thrown out with the bathwater' (Sewell). This argument states that education focuses on the strengths and talents possessed by girls. This links to there being a decrease in male primary school teachers, with around 16% of primary school teachers being male (DfES). Many boys say that a male presence makes them work harder and behave better (Yougov)- but two thirds of young children said that the teacher's gender doesn't matter (Francis) and some say that male teachers are harsher (Myhill and Jones). There may have been a growth in 'laddish' subcultures, with boys likely to be teased and subjected to homophobic abuse if seen as a 'swot' (Epstein). Such labels may threaten their masculinity (Francis). In working class culture, masculinity is prized, and associated with manual labour, not schoolwork (Epstein), with laddish subcultures becoming more widespread in response to girls moving into more traditionally masculine areas such as manual work (Francis). However, it should be remembered that boys are achieving more than in the past, and that the similarities in gender achievement may be more significant than the differences (McVeigh)- the class gap tends to be far wider than the gender gap (DfES). Class and ethnicity may also have an effect; for example, black girls may be successful as they prize achievement and independence. There may be an 'interactions effect', where certain combinations of gender, class and ethnicity have different effects (Connolly).
Subject Choice and Gender Identity
There still remains big differences in the subjects chosen by girls and boys. Whilst the National Curriculum has reduced this (by reducing freedom of choice), where there is freedom subjects are still chosen differently (Stables and Wikeley). This is more noticeable at A level, where there's more choice, with boys tending to opt for maths and physics, and girls often taking language based subjects. In vocational courses, there's even more of a split- only 1% of construction students are female, though they make up 91% of health, public services and care students. One explanation for this is early socialisation. Whilst 'sex' refers to physical differences between males and females, 'gender' is the learned cultural differences (Oakley). Early socialisation is said to shape gender identity, with differences in clothing, activities and what children are rewarded for (Norman). Schools may encourage certain traits from boys and other ones from girls (Byrne). As a result of socialisation, children develop different reading tastes, which could explain later subject choices (Murphy and Elwood). Early experiences may also shape 'gender domains' (Browne and Ross)- whether tasks/activities are male or female. Children tend to be more comfortable when the task is part of their gender domain. There's also a difference in task interpretation and focus (Murphy). Another factor could be gendered subject images. For example, science may be seen as a male subject- teachers are more likely to be male, textbooks tend to draw on male experiences and boys may dominate experiments (Kelly). Likewise, computer science could be said to be masculine due to machines being part of the gender domain (Colley). It's been found that students in same-sex schools are less likely to hold stereotypes subject images, making them more likely to choose subjects that 'belong' to the other gender doman (Leonard). Subject choice can also be affected by peer pressure, and the wish to portray masculinity/femininity. Girls who participate in sport, for instance, may be seen as contradicting the traditional female role (Paetcher); this could lead to being called 'lesbian' or 'butch' (Dewar). The absence of opposite sex peer pressure in same sex schools may be what leads to the difference in subject choice.Lastly, employment tends to be very gendered, meaning youths may see certain jobs as being unacceptable. As vocational courses are more closely linked to employment, this helps explain why there's more of a gender divide. Schools may also reinforce gender identities, particularly through 'hegemonic masculinity' (the dominance of heterosexual masculinity) (Connell). A 'rich vocabulary of abuse' (Connell) may be used to police gender/sexual identities; for example, girls may be called 'slags' or 'drags' (Lees). Name calling can be used to help shape gender identity as well as reinforcing male power (Paetcher), whilst 'gay' is a common insult, used even when boys are merely friendly with girls/teachers (Parker). These terms are generally unconnected to the actual identity of the individual. Male peer groups also reinforce masculinity, for example by labelling those who want to do well as 'dickhead achievers' (Mac an Ghaill). However, the dominance of masculine identity may switch over time (from 'macho lads' to 'real Englishmen'), showing a change in attitudes, atmosphere and composition. Teachers can also aid gender reinforcement (Redman & Mac an Ghaill). Boys may be disciplined for acting 'girly', whilst verbal abuse of girls may be ignored, or the girls even blamed for it (Haywood & Mac an Ghaill). The behaviour of teachers can also subtly reinforce gender identities (Askew and Ross). Moving on, the 'male gaze' may be used to police masculinity, and to devalue femininity, making girls into sexual objects (Mac an Ghaill). Lastly, there can be double standards in gender identity, for example in the way that the sexual conquests of boys are approved of, but female sexual exploration is seen as negative (Lees). This could be seen as an example of patriarchal ideology.
The Role of Education: Functionalism
Functionalists see society as being based on harmony and functions. There are three main functionalist viewpoints when it comes to education. The first is that of solidarity and skills (Durkheim). This view sees education as creating social solidarity by transmitting shared values and attitudes to each generation, meaning that society is harmonious. Education also allows for the development of specialist skills, enabling modern industrial economies- where labour is generally divided into specialist parts- to thrive. Vocational training helps this; however, vocational training is criticised for providing cheap labour and just being a way to keep unemployment statistics low (Finn); it may also be another way to transmit capitalist ideologies (Cohen). A second functionalist viewpoint sees education as a meritocracy (Parsons). That's where achievements and status must be earned through one's own abilities. School also acts as preparation for wider society because, unlike the family, it has universalistic standards (as well as being a meritocracy). Lastly, it may be that the main function of education is role allocation (Davis and Moore). Inequality may be necessary to ensure that the most important jobs are filled by the most talented people. Big rewards are offered for these jobs to ensure competition, meaning the best people can be selected. Education acts as a proving ground, meaning that people can be pre-allocated to the best role for them. This is because modern economy depends on 'human capital'- the skills of the workers (Blau and Duncan). However, functionalists are criticised by those who think that education doesn't transmit shared values and attitudes, but instead those of the ruling class. It can also be argued that the role allocation argument is somewhat circular (Tumin), and that the solidarity theory takes an over-socialised viewpoint (Wrong). Lastly, the New Right disagree that the education is fulfilling it's 'role' due to the involvement of the state.
The Role of Education: the New Right
The New Right take a similar view to the functionalists, in that they think that some people are more talented than others; they favour a meritocratic education system; and they believe that education should socialise pupils into shared values. However, they don't think that state-run education is achieving these goals, and argue for increased marketisation, maybe involving education vouchers. This would put the power in the hands of the consumers and mean that inadequate schools are forced to change. Private schools have been found to deliver better education because they must answer to a consumer; additionally, it's argued that state education is failing both the economy and disadvantaged pupils (Chubb and Moe). Though the New Right think that the state should release control of education, they do see it as still having a role- firstly, in providing a competition framework (such as league tables and Ofsted reports) and secondly by imposing a National Curriculum, ensuring that shared values are transmitted. Criticisms for this viewpoint come from those who see marketisation as only benefiting the middle class (Gerwitz and Ball), as well as those who see the issues not in state funding but in inequal funding. There's also a contradiction in the New Right wanting the state to not be involved to allow parental choice, but involved to put in a shared curriculum. Lastly, the shared values and attitudes would be argued by the Marxists to be not shared, but merely that of the ruling class.
The Role of Education: Marxism
One Marxist perspective on education is that it acts as an ideological state apparatus (Althusser). In this view, the state uses two 'apparatuses' with which to maintain bourgeoisie power- repressive state apparatuses (which keep power by force or the threat of it) and ideological state apparatuses (which keep power by controlling ideas, values and beliefs). Education performs two functions as an ISA- it reproduces class inequality by failing the working class, and it legitimates inequality by making it appear inevitable. Another theory is that of the hidden curriculum and correspondence principle (Bowles and Gintis). This argues that capitalism needs a certain kind of workforce, that will accept authority control unquestioningly. A study found that the traits rewarded by education are exactly the kind of traits (such as obedience and punctuality) that education rewards (Bowles and Gintis). Ergo, this theory sees education as corresponding to work, with elements such as hieriarchy and alienation corresponding directly to work. The teaching of capitalist values is seen as the hidden curriculum- what's being taught without formal education. The same theory goes on to say that meritocracy is merely a myth, purely acting as a way to legitimate class inequality, by making people feel that they 'deserve' their place, such as in the 'poor-is-dumb' theory (Bowles and Gintis). Lastly, some Marxists say that indoctrination of capitalist values is not definite, and that students can reject this (Willis). However, in a study of those who tried to reject the school's attitudes and values, the culture they ended up in mimicked the shopfloor culture of manual workers, meaning that they were ready to slot into their role in capitalism regardless of their attempts to reject it (Willis). Marxist approaches are useful as they highlight that meritocracy is a myth; however, postmodernists criticise the correspondence principle, saying that we are no longer in the Fordist era, and that work now is very diverse. The hidden curriculum/correspondence view could also be seen to be deterministic; whilst the last view shows that values can be rejected, the outcome was still the same, so it potentially remains deterministic. In addition, the Marxists are criticised for being too preoccupied with class (Morrow and Torres) and for ignoring the patriarchy found within schools (MacDonald).
Social Policy and Education
From the late 19th century, the state became more involved in education, passing a variety of acts to increase the compulsory aspect of education, and to change varying elements about it. One stage education went through was the tripartite system, in which three different schools were available. Children were selected and allocated to these based on whether they passed the 11+ test. If they did, they went to grammar schools, which were academic and offered access to higher education. If the 11+ wasn't passed, the child went to a secondary modern school, where access was to manual work. The third type were technical schools, but these were of limited availability. Though it was meant to be meritocratic, the system just reproduced class inequality, as it was the working class who went to the secondary modern schools. It legitimated these inequalities by saying that ability was innate, and could be tested at an early age. It was also sexist; girls had to get higher marks on the 11+ test than boys. As a result of different failings, the comprehensive system was introduced in many (though not all) areas in 1965. It aimed to overcome the class inequality problems by abolishing the 11+; comprehensive schools were introduced for all pupils, as opposed to the grammar/secondary divide. However, labelling and streaming mean that class division continues, and the myth of meritocracy still legitimates class inequality. Marketisation has increased, for example with publication of exam league tables, schools being able to opt out of LEA control and business sponsorship of schools. There's reduced state control and increased competition, as well as increased parental choice; some call this the 'parentocracy' (David). However, it's still argued that class inequality is reproduced and legitimated, with exam league tables making it difficult for poor schools to get the students (and therefore grades) they need to make themselves look better; and with the funding formula meaning that middle class schools- with more students- get more money (Ball and Whitty). Parentocracy is dismissed as a myth (Ball), with things such as the different types of chooser (Gerwitz) showing that there's less parental input than people like to think. Lastly, we come onto New Labour policies since 1997. These have aimed to reduce inequality, for example by establishing Education Action Zones and the Aim Higher programme. Diversity and choice have also been promoted, to try and do away with the 'one size fits all' comprehensive schooling, and encourage specialist schools. Such policies reflect postmodernist ideas, where schools no longer need to be uniform, and education can be customised to meet needs and wishes (Thompson). Modern and postmodern education is said to be very different; for example, the latter is lifelong and involves the learner as an active participant (Usher). However, postmodernists may exaggerate the diversity currently available, and neglect inequality. There's also contradictions between New Labour's inequality policies and marketisation, for example with EMAs and uni fees (Whitty). Others see New Labour as being positive (Trowler). Policies such as GIST and WISE have been brought in to look specifically at girls achievement. There have also been policies aimed at ethnic achievement, starting with assimilation (assimilating ethnic groups into mainstram British culture), then moving to multi cultural education (promoting the achievements of those from ethnic groups) and social inclusion (involving exam result monitoring and promoting racial equality). However, MCE has been criticised for being tokenist and misguided (Stone), whilst others see there being little genuine change in policy, with no tackling of real issues such as poverty and racism (Mirza).