Marxist and Funtionalist Perspectives on Inequality of Educational Achievement Due to Social Class - Essay Example

? Education Marxist and Funtionalist Perspectives on Inequality of Educational Achievement Due to Social By ID Number Module Title and Number Name of Professor/ Tutor Date of Submission Marxist and Funtionalist Perspectives on Inequality of Educational Achievement Due to Social Class Introduction Although Karl Marx (1818-1883), the Prussian-German philosopher did not fully develop or integrate education into his theory of capitalism and social class, he referred to education frequently in his writings about the class struggle. Marx along with Fredrick Engels advocated education for all, but focused mainly on the type of education accessible to the working classes, and how “this education served the interests of the ruling class, the boureoisie, in maintaining their social dominance” (Saha, 2008, p.300). The work of Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), the French classical sociologist, along with the ideas of Marx and Weber, impacted the development of the sociology of education. As a functionalist, Durkheim’s understanding of education, particularly schools as the primary socialization agent for the production of the future adult, took into consideration “the role that various social institutions played in society, and in particular how they contributed to the maintenance of social order” (Saha, 2008, p.301) and equity. Thesis Statement: The purpose of this paper is to compare Marxist and Functionalist views attributing social class differences for inequality of educational achievement. Marxism: Inequality of Educational Achievement Due to Social Class The key feature of the Marxist critique of capitalist schooling is the inequality in educational achievement, based on social class. “Educational inequality persists because of the ‘needs’ of capitalism” (Liston, 1988, p.346). This claim is validated by comparing educational achievement in countries distinguished as advanced capitalist such as the United States and Great Britain, characterized as state-communist such Russia and Eastern bloc countries, and those depicted as democratic socialist such as Sweden and Denmark. According to the Marxist critique, differences would be expected to appear as an outcome of the “distinctions in social, political, and economic contexts” (Liston, 1988, p.346). At the least, the democratic socialist countries would be expected to have achieved greater educational equality among citizens of distinct class backgrounds. It was found that the Soviet Union has not achieved educational equality to a noticeable extent, based on its characterization as a state capitalist country, deeply divided by class distinctions, and with the state bureaucracy at its core (Liston, 1988). Ramirez (2006) argues that cross-nationally, family background is clearly related to academic achievement; however, there is extensive cross-national variation in the correlation between achievement and aspirations. According to Ream and Palardy (2008), ‘social capital’ forms one of the components of social class which includes material and human capital. The researchers examined how parental social networks divided by class increase educational inequality among school children. Further, the authors used survey data to determine whether “certain forms of parental social capital create educational advantages for socioeconomically privileged students vis-a-vis their less economically fortunate peers” (Ream and Palardy, 2008, p.238). Distinguishing between the availability of social capital and its convertibility, while greater extents of parental social capital was found to be concurrent with higher rungs in the social class ladder; the utility value of social capital for education was not clearly related to class status. A possible exception to this tendency could be the collective influence of middle-class parents’ ideas on beneficially changing school policies and practices. It is important to investigate whether the economic and sociological reasons for inequality can promote “educationally useful social exchange among parents across social boundaries” (Ream and Palardy, 2008, p.238). Social justice and equity in connection with higher education is an important area of research towards policy formulation. These concepts help to create a more impartial, courteous, and just society for everyone. This conceptualization focuses on society as a whole; however “higher education research literature looks inward towards higher education itself” (Brennan and Naidoo, 2008, p.287). In the social composition of higher education’s staff and student populations, it is found that equity and social justice agendas are imported from the wider society. This approach considers the rules of the competition as unfair if particular social groups are excluded or placed in a disadvantageous position in the competition for higher education. Functionalism: Impact of Social Class on Educational Achievement Functionalism is characterised as a set of three interrelatedd theses about the social world. These include the following: First, the interconnection thesis that all elements of social life are interconnected; they impact each other strongly, and together they form a whole. Second, the functional interconnection thesis that all components of social life support or reinforce each other, and consequently also the entire society which they constitute. Third, the explanatory functional interconnection thesis that the nature of each element is based on its contribution to the whole as described in the second thesis of functional interconnection thesis. Thus, the third thesis involves the second, which in turn requires the first. This strong interpretation of functionalism founded on the three theses, puts forth a perspective of society as a combined whole, “where each aspect reinforces the other elements and the entire society, and where every event can be explained by its effects on society” (Liston, 1988, p.327). There is disparity in the access to school knowledge provided by schools; thus, “children of more powerful societal groups have greater access to the kind of knowledge that may, in turn, permit them greater access to societal and economic power” (Oakes, 1985, p.202). A functionalist interpretation of the author’s thesis explains this access to discrepantly valued knowledge as promoting the legitimisation of capitalist social relations, and enhancement of capitalist production. This thesis includes several distinct effect-producing claims. As a result of tracking, first, students of distinct class positions are provided with qualitatively superior curricula; second, students of privileged backgrounds are presented with curriculum of a higher status; and third, “this differential distribution of knowledge allows these students greater access to social and economic power” (Liston, 1988, p.344). The historical connection between class and educational change is considered to be the outcome of power struggles won by the capitalist class. Higher education has a significant role to play in improving an individual’s life chances in the long term, and helps in exporting equity and social justice to the wider society. However, in the selection of applicants for employment, unequal treatment on the basis of possession of educational credentials is necessary as well as legitimate. The functionalist belief is to “get the right people into the right social positions, to the general benefit of all” (Brennan and Naidoo, 2008, p.287), and legitimising the inequalities of wealth and status in this context. Thus, the outcome for society is not the development of greater social equity, but that the absence of it is considered legitimate because of the perceived existence of broadly equal opportunities. According to Kemper (1976), despite several differences, among the similarities are two analytical elements common to both Marxist and functionalist theories. These include social power and evaluation of contribution as determinants of the tangible distribution of rewards. However, the two theories differ substantially in their emphasis on these two components in their explanations. Further, to a great extent, current Marxist discussion of education’s role in production is similar to Turner’s (1960) classic theory of ‘sponsored mobility’. Moreover, the Marxist/ radical interest in the political economy of education has stimulated attention on functionalism’s focus on the relationship between education and the economy (Hickox, 1982). Conclusion This paper has examined Marxist and functionalist perspectives attributing social class differences for inequality of educational achievement. The findings indicate that Marx’s theory of society did not directly focus on education; however, his concepts have given rise to the neo-Marxist sociology of education. This approach is similar to aspects of the reproduction theory which represents education as a mechanism for reproducing the class structure of society, thereby reproducing the privileges of the dominant class. It is concluded that there are similarities between Marxist and functionalist accounts of education. Besides social power and the evaluation of contribution in educational outcomes, the two approaches believe in the “existence of a close relationship between processes of educational differentiation on the one hand, and differentiation within the wider occupational hierarchy on the other” (Hickox, 1982, p.564). This parallel is specifically found in the types of functionalism which emphasize the ideal standards, as opposed to the purely vocational features of the educational process. Bibliography Brennan, J. and Naidoo, R. (2008). Higher education and the achievement (and/ or prevention) of equity and social justice. Higher Education, 56 (3), 287-302. Hickox, M.S. (1982). The Marxist sociology of education: A critique. The British Journal of Sociology, 33 (4), 563-578. Liston, D.P. (1988). Faith and evidence: Examining Marxist explanations of schools. American Journal of Education, 96 (3), 323-350. Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track. The United States of America: Yale University Press. Oakes, Jeannie. Keeping Track. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1985. Ramirez, F.O. (2006). Beyond achievement and attainment studies: Revitalizing a comparative sociology of education. Comparative Education, 42 (3), 431-449. Ream, R.K. and Palardy, G.J. (2008). Reexamining social class differences in the availability and the educational utility of parental social capital. American Educational Research Journal, 45 (2), 238-273. Saha, L.J. (2008). Sociology of education. London: Sage Publications. Turner, R.H. (1960). Sponsored and contest mobility and the school system. The United Kingdom: Bobbs-Merrill Publishers. Read More