Sociology of Education - Essay Example

?Introduction In contemporary society, education is emphasised as a critical possession necessary for attaining economic success in life. Education, as social institution plays a critical role in the society. Various research studies have demonstrated that an individual’s occupational achievement is directly related with his/her level of education (Kelsh, Hill, and Macrine, 2009). In spite of positive contributions made by the education sectors in the society, it has unfortunately created social stratification and inequalities based on ethnicity and gender among other aspects. This paper explores various perspectives of three theories in sociology of education, namely functionalism, Marxism and interactionism in examining the role and impact of education in the society, especially in perpetuation of inequalities. Functionalism theory is structuralist in nature and though its influence has waned over the past decades, it still makes important contributions in education system and society. Functionalism holds that the main objective of education is maintenance of “social order in society” (Chris, and Tony, 2006, p5). To ensure maintenance of social order in the society, the theory emphasizes on indoctrinating new generations with norms and values contained in education curriculum. In United Kingdom, the sociological importance of functionalism has declined, but in education institutions, the theory continues playing a significant role in defining and shaping the guiding policies (Kumar, and Hill, 2009). According to Chris and Tony (2006), the underlying ideologies of functionalism, which include competition, consensus and achievement through merit, define education in addition to politics in the United Kingdom. According to Hill and Cole (2001), broad groups of people and their behaviour is the major focus of functionalism. In respect to the role of education in society, the theory focuses on several major aspects, namely institutional relationships and functional linkage with society and merit based systems (Hill and Cole 2001). In relation to institutional relationships, functional theory emphasises on the role of education in linking other social institutions such as family with occupational engagements (Cole, 2008). In contemporary society, Cole (2008, p40) argues education plays an important role in linking the basic unit of society with the workplaces through various mechanisms. For instance, education institutions develop the capacities of human resources through training. By setting various criteria for training of these professionals, education institutions ensure that the society has a balanced pool of human resources to meet its needs (David and Barry 1985). At personal or individual levels, functionalism theory holds that education acts as an agent of secondary socialisation (Gillborn, and Mirza, 2000). By expanding or broadening individual experience through education, a child is prepared to take over the role of an adult in workplaces and society (Arum, and Beattie, 2000, p72). Meritocracy, in functionalist perspective plays a major role in ensuring that education performs its role in socialisation and promoting institutional linkage. According to, David and Barry (1985, p53), meritocracy refers to a system that “offers rewards to an individual based on ability and effort”. Examples of rewards in the current society include job opportunities, high remuneration and elevated social status. Therefore, functionalists hold that rewards in society should be awarded to individuals who demonstrate high ability or effort rather than on grounds of nepotism, status of an individual or family background. In education, meritocracy has created competition in different levels of education because of various rewards offered on attaining a particular level. In United Kingdom, education qualifications at various levels such as GCSE and A levels determine the career that an individual can pursue or qualification for admission in available institutions of higher learning (Cole, 2009, p269). In addition, educational achievements contribute significantly to “social mobility and stratification” (Chris and Tony, 2006, p13). Practices such as elite self-recruitment, where professionals in middle and upper classes enrol their children in elitist educational institutions encourage inequalities in society. The practice enhances social stratification in society because such educated children access well paying jobs and higher status than other children, who have similar qualifications but lack relevant parental influence in the job market (Chris and Tony, 2006, p14). For meritocracy to work effectively in any society, equal opportunity for all people irrespective of their status should prevail (Rosenbaun and Amy 1997). However in reality, merit based system does not always ensure that the best-qualified persons occupy the most important and rewarding professions or positions. For any society to endure and develop, functionalists contend that it must consistently empower and recruit younger generations as the older becomes eliminated through natural attrition (David and Barry 1985). In addition, the society must meet the basic needs of its members and ensure prevalence of order to prevent conflict and encourage attributes essential for the particular society’s existence. In short, the society must formulate methods of solving challenges to sustain social order. Various institutions provide solutions for different challenges confronting the society at a given time. For instance, the family through reproduction process ensures perpetuation of human species, to replace dying and underproductive members. In functionalist view, education serves the role of empowering people through training (David and Barry 1985, p73). Parsons (1959, p64) argued that education serves two main purposes in the society namely socialisation and selection, which create social order in a given society. In Parsons (1959) perspective, social order cannot exist without an effective method of socialisation. David and Barry (1985, p105) argue that education offers opportunities for ensuring equality in the society. In spite of education presenting avenue of the equal opportunity, differences or inequalities arise in societies mainly because of variations in abilities of the people, differences in family values, beliefs and aspirations pertaining to education. In addition, personal motivations and interests towards education determine whether a person works hard in school to attain high academic qualifications (Hill and Cole 1999, p27). Hence, functionalists argue that difference in educational achievement creates inequality in society because it determines the kind of job, income and the status in the socially stratified structure (Provenzo, 2002, p 29). From functionalist perspective, education serves two basic roles in society. These include promoting secondary socialisation and coordinating human resources (Chris and Tony, 2006). Concerning socialisation, education liberates a child from the primary attachment to the family. This implies that education forms an important link between occupation and the family as the basic unit of society. Education institutions propagate various ideologies concerning socialisation (Chris and Tony, 2006, p8). Some of these ideas include instrumental relationships, social control, social unity or solidarity and transmission of cultural values. Social control inculcates students with self-control and it emphasises on learning beliefs, attitudes or behaviours that are acceptable to the society disregarding the unacceptable behaviours (Chris and Tony, 2006, p8) Transmission of cultural values according to functionalists is another important role of education in society. Parsons (1959, p86) emphasised on the importance of “internalising a level of values and norms higher than those acquired in the family set up” as one of the most important roles of education in socialisation. It is through interacting with other children at formative years that pupils learn and integrate the acquired values into their personalities, acquiring wider and more diverse values and norms in the process (Kumar and Hill 2009). All individuals irrespective of their unique individual characters should form common interests with other members of society to promote social unity (Lemert, 2002). It is important for every member to feel that he or she belongs to larger social group such as religious and educational institutions. Development of social unity entails social integration and hence, it is important for education institution to develop appropriate policies that helps in integrating pupils of diverse backgrounds (Kelsh, Hill, and Macrine 2009). In modern societies, including United Kingdom, such policies include school uniforms to help the students indentify with particular institution and encouraging competition between different schools among others (Chris and Tony, 2006, p12). However, these integrative attempts perpetuate inequalities in societies because they highlight inherent differences between different schools involved. Functionalism perpetuates inequality in society through education system because it emphasises on role allocation in preparation for future adult responsibilities. Role allocation causes social differentiation because of the various levels of skills, expertise and education required to attain the required competence (Dewey, 1916, p74). This disparity perpetuates inequalities in education institutions since the learners are trained differently in accordance with their career prospects. Assessment tests and examinations are used as the medium for ensuring merit contributing to further inequalities (Hill and Cole 2001). Rewards such as job opportunities are awarded based on qualifications. Subsequently, social stratification where people occupy different status in the society occurs due to differentiation and specialisation. Lemert (2002, p93) argues that stratification is “an automatic outcome of education, because it allocates the most intellectually gifted individuals roles that are the most rewarding”. Hence, education is a selective institution that places people in different categories depending on their capacities, class or talents. Marxist perspective on the role of education has remained relatively marginal in United Kingdom, a situation that David and Barry (1985, p134), attributed to anti capitalist orientation of Karl Marx ideologies. However, some aspects of Marxism permeated into the education system of capitalist countries, including United Kingdom. Cultural reproduction is one of the most prominent ideas of Marxism towards education and learning. Cole (2009) argues that the concept of cultural reproduction bears close resemblance to secondary socialisation advanced by the functionalists. Marxism perspective in capitalist societies implies the need of replicating or reproducing the economic ideology from “one generation to the next” (Provenzo, 2002, p90). In education, learners need to be equipped with skills to prepare them for respective careers in future. However, the education itself is not based on merit, because only people with the capacity to educate their children manage to secure better status of their children in future. Chris and Tony, (2006, p14) argue that Marxist perspective is not to “educate all persons in the society, but just enough to become useful employees and a much smaller number to assume the most influential roles in the society”. The concept of hidden curriculum in Marxism demonstrates the mechanism in which ideas pertaining to the social world and individual are passed along the education system. This implies that educational institutions do not just teach academic disciplines but other values such as competition and achievement are disguised within the formal curriculum as a yardstick of determining the value or worth of an individual in the capitalist society (Dewey, 1916). Therefore, Marxist perspective holds that the education system is a response to the demands of employers. Marxist perspective on education can be investigated through historical materialism and the concept of man or human nature. The historical materialism concept emphasise on what people pursue or do to sustain their lives in society (Cole, 2009). According to David and Barry (1985, p138), the basic characteristic of any given society is its ability to generate means of sustenance or survival. Therefore, any human endeavour in society is motivated by the need to survive. In Marxist perspective, society is composed of two aspects, which are economics that forms the foundation and superstructure consisting of institutions such as education, politics, religion, family, beliefs, values and ideas (Bowles and Gintis, 1976 p 77). In relation to these two aspects, Marxists belief that economic base determine the superstructure (Cole, 2008). This implies the education system in a country is the consequence of the prevailing economic changes. Hence changes in economic base ultimately results to transformation of political, educational, religious, and cultural institutions (David and Barry, 1985). The theory of direct reproduction expounds on Marxists view of education. The theory of direct reproduction holds that education enables replication and hence maintenance of the capitalist economic system in society (Bowles and Gintis, 1976, p115). According to David and Barry (1985, p147), “education system is an integral element in the reproduction of the prevailing class structure in the society”. Hence, education attains this objective through two fundamental pathways. Firstly, education justifies or legitimises the class structure and its subsequent inequalities by nurturing the belief that economic success of an individual solely depends on possession of appropriate education and skills (David and Barry 1985, p153). Secondly, education prepares young learners for their future place in class dominated society by instilling relevant capacities, skills, ideas, qualifications and beliefs, which are compatible with capitalist economic ideals (Bowles and Gintis, 1976, p136). Hence, in Marxist perspective, the role of education is reproducing capitalist economic structure through “socialisation and legitimisation” (Cole, 2008, p66). In other words, education is a tool of perpetuating class oppression, where people in upper classes suppress social mobility of individuals in lower classes. In education systems of United Kingdom for instance, academic or theoretical learning is valued more than vocational training. Chris and Tony, (2006, p16) attributed the attitude to the fact that academic learning leads to development of professionals. In Marxist perspective, “professionals control what is taught and how it is taught in educational institutions” (Arum, and Beattie, 2000, p163). Interactionist perspectives consider the function of education in society from a procedural dimension rather than systematic view (David and Barry 1985). Interactionists examine the role of education from a view of “social construction, which considers education as a flexible process, that is fluid and open to various interpretations” (Provenzo, 2002, p59). According to Dewey (1916, p119), education should be “transformative, with emphasis on the social, psychological and moral development of individuals”. Hence, from Dewey’s perspective, education is a process that entails provision of required support to enable individuals achieve their optimal abilities. Therefore, in interactionist perspective, role of training in education is to equip learners with skills and knowledge to enhance their capacity in undertaking particular professional roles. Lemert (2002, p49), argues that interactionists view education from an “inside school perspective”. Due to high emphasis on the education process, various aspects develop which perpetuate inequalities in society. One of the major causes of inequalities in education about this perspective is “labelling”, which emanates from the interactionists attempts to comprehend how teachers and pupils structure or construct education (Chris and Tony, 2006, p19). Labelling theory, one of the major aspects of interactionist perspective examines how teachers, who form one of the most influential components of education, classify and stereotype their students on the grounds of academic achievement and other abilities (Gillborn and Mirza 2000, p144). These informal labels influence how students perceive their roles and status within the school set up and in society. According to Provenzo (2002), stereotypical labels influence official definition of students in the school structure. The labels are divisive, and they encourage learners to limit their capacities or potential in compliance with the implied stereotypes. Some of the practices in educational institutions in United Kingdom that encourage entrenchment of negative stereotypes include streaming, banding and setting (Chris and Tony, 2006, p18). Streaming entails grouping of students in categories annually depending on their performance while banding involves teaching students in the same class subjects of different academic levels. Setting is grouping students based on their performance in various subjects (Chris and Tony, 2006). Labelling is not limited to school setting and the wider society have embraced the behaviour, perceiving some schools as failures while others are considered as model for success. Labelling students contributes to entrenchment self-fulfilling prophecy among them, where they fail to put more effort and resign to poor grades simply because the teacher brands them as weak or incapable (Kelsh, Hill and Macrine 2009). Therefore, interactionist perspective perpetuates inequalities in society profoundly. Middle and upper class families decline enrolling their children in schools that are labelled as failures while low class people who cannot afford elite schools continue educating their children in the poorly performing schools. Conclusion Our education system continues being instrumental in perpetuating inequalities in the society. In view of functionalism, education encourages inequalities through meritocracy, which is designed to reward people depending on their abilities or efforts. Training people on different skills or professions causes differentiation and stratification in the society and education system. Marxist perspective view education as mechanism of reproducing capitalism in society. Therefore, employers or economic state determines what students are taught in educational institutions in order to empower the students with appropriate skills to perpetuate capitalist economy. Marxism affirms that education perpetuates inequality by fostering the belief among learners that economic success depends exclusively on their academic achievements. Interactionist perspective holds that education perpetuates inequality by attaching negative stereotypes on students and education institutions based on their ability, race and other aspects. Bibliography Arum, R., and Beattie, I.(2000). The social structure of schooling: Readings in the sociology of education. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. Bowles, H., and Gintis, S.(1976). Schooling in capitalist America. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Chris, L., and Tony, L.(2006). Education: AS sociology for AQA. 2nd ed. [online]. Available from http://www.sociology.org.uk/sc_shop_pdf/sc_AS4AQA_educate_e.pdf [assessed on 4 March 2012]. Cole, M. (2008). Marxism and educational theory: Origins and issues. London: Routledge. Cole, M.(2009). Critical race theory comes to the UK: A Marxist response. Ethnicities.9(2): 249- 265. David, B., and Barry, H.(1985). Sociological interpretations of education. London: Taylor and Francis. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. London: Macmillan Publishing company. Gillborn, D., and Mirza, H.(2000). Educational inequality: Mapping race, class and gender- a synthesis of research evidence. London: Ofsted. Hill, D., and Cole, M. (eds). (1999). Promoting equality in primary schools. London: Continuum Hill, D., and Cole, M. (eds). (2001). Schooling and equality: Fact, concept and policy. London: Kogan Page. Kelsh, D., Hill, D., and Macrine, S. (eds) (2009). Teaching class: Knowledge, pedagogy, subjectivity. London: Routledge Kumar, R., and Hill, D. (eds). (2009). Global neoliberalism and education and its consequences. New York: Routledge. Lemert, C.(2002). Social things: An introduction to the sociological life. 2nd ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Parsons, T.(1959). The school class as a social system. New York: Harvard Educational Review. Provenzo, E.(2002). Teaching, learning and schooling: A 21st century perspective. New York: Allyn and Bacon. Rosenbaun, J., and Amy, B.(1997). Do employers really need more educated youth? Sociology of Education. 70: pp 69-84. . Read More