Function Role of Education – Sociology

Function Role of Education – Sociology

Parsons adds that schools prepare children for the adult world too – and prepares them for the competition they face as adults since schools are competitive you have to compete with others to do well). Davis and Moore say we have to have unequal rewards (pay) to motivate the cleverer students to stay on in education to learn and to be willing to do the harder jobs. Functionalists see society as a meritocracy – people get what they merit/ deserve in jobs based on how well they’ve done in school.

Marxist Marxist say education does 3 things too ; Helps capitalism by teaching kids what they need to work for the capitalists ; Justifies inequality because the working class kids fail exams and look ‘thick’ ; Passes on beliefs that all is fair in society (passes on a ruling class ideology). Alters says it produces a docile and obedient workforce -? they failed exams and accept they only deserve a poorly paid job. Class-based inequalities just carry on generation after generation because children grow up believing capitalism is normal, just and fair.

Education is part of the ideological state apparatus m Bowels and Giants say at school kids learn to accept a hierarchy (people in charge of others) , they accept getting a reward for doing something boring, they get used to a ‘working day’ with a lunch break, and they learn you get rewarded for following the rules. All this repaper you to accept a boring job in capitalism. Willis said not everyone accepts school – some kids cope by mucking about and they cope with a boring job the same way too.

Broodier used the idea of cultural capital – middle class kids have a language, skills, attitudes and knowledge which fit in with middle class schools. Radicals Radicals like Ill ICC want to get rid of schools. He says they simply look after kids so parents can go to work, sort pupils in top job roles, pass on dominant values and teach skills. Just like the functionalists really – but for Illicit this isn’t good enough. He wants to get rid of schools and have education for life – mainly all we need is training and this can be done at work -? most of what you learn at school isn’t necessary!!!!

Criticisms of Functionalists : ; Doesn’t look very meritocracy when you see different achievement according to class, ethnicity and gender! You can’t really believe working class ‘deserve’ to do badly! They can’t all be thick – something fishy is going on!! ; Nepotism is still important – it’s who you know, not what you know – hardly a meritocracy – I might be cleverer than Charles but he got the job because his Daddy is friends with the factory owner! Where did education fit in there?? ; There are loads of jobs we don’t have people trained for – engineers for example -? so education isn’t working that well for the economy really. Functionalists don’t see the conflict – as ever they only see the positive side. They don’t see how it’s used to help capitalism. Criticisms of Marxist ; They exaggerate how passive people are – working class don’t just all accept education making them ‘failures’ – many are very defiant about it! ; They think we don’t see the unfairness of education – we know there’s not a eradicator -people moan about it! Criticisms of both Functionalists and Marxist ; Being Positivists, they both ignore internal stimulus; they don’t look at what goes on in schools. They ignore social interaction and labeling.

They both only look at the whole of society and how external factors affect people’s behavior, although, of course, they don’t agree with each other on what the effect of education is – to support society values and meritocracy or to support inequality and capitalism? Feminists Feminists say the hidden curriculum reinforces gender differences and supports patriarchy. This is clear in gender differences in subject choices too. Although girls do better than boys now, they still get much more attention from the teachers and they go on to do the ‘important’ subjects at university.

Men can be seen to be ‘in charge? in schools and universities too. Remember the three types of feminists though ; Marxist feminists see gender inequalities linked to capitalism ; Radical fem. insist see gender inequalities linked to patriarchy and they want female-centered education ; Liberal feminists simply want equal access to education for both sexes – changes in law is what they see as the solution. Obviously, you can criticism the feminists for NOT seeing what the Functionalists or Interactions do. They also see women as too passive- simply suffering this inequality. . Class and Differential Achievement in Education Some important facts.. ; Children with professional parents are more likely to go to university Children with middle class parents are more likely to study -?levels and working class children to do vocational courses ; Children from disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to leave school at 16 and less likely to start school being able to read ; Children with unskilled parents are ore likely to do badly in Stats and Gases and more likely to be in bottom streams or bands in school.

Some believe this simply shows they’re less clever but most sociologists say there are social factors which can explain this much better. I Processes within the school Interactions say labeling in schools leads to a self-fulfilling prophesy of failure. Becker and Coddle say teachers look I I for an ideal student in terms of Appearance, personality, speech and social class. Kids who don’t match this get labeled as I thick – they end up believing they’re thick, don’t try and therefore fail.

I I Labeled students might be babbled even more by being put in a lower stream or band. Coddle found the top bands were full of I I middle class kids who were taught differently and there were higher expectations of them. They were given higher levels of I knowledge too. I The labeling might lead to students forming anti-school sub-cultures where they became ‘naughty! Most naughty kids are I Reworking class. I Criticism – Interactions are excellent at looking at processes within the school but fail to look at factors outside of Ethel School – like capitalism!

They don’t explain why teachers label some kids as bright and others not -? why would they think I Reworking class aren’t clever?? I Some people say Interactions are too deterministic. This means they believe labeling determines whether you do well or onto l- perhaps there are many other factors too. Being labeled might not be the kiss of death – many reject the labels. I Did you know?? I African Asians are people of Indian origin who lived in Kenya and Uganda and then moved to Britain in the sass I Material Deprivation I This theory says lack of money is the main problem. How?

I Halley found working class didn’t stay on at school mainly due to lack of financial support I Douglas found children from poor conditions ( damp houses, poor food, overcrowding etc) – working class! – did worse in exams I I Poorly paid jobs or unemployment (working class! ) leads to less money for books, computers, trips, less space to work at home I I etc. Rich kids can go to nurseries, private school and afford university. Poverty can cause health problems and absence from school. Acquittal Deprivation This theory says the culture and attitudes of families is the main problem.

I I Douglas believed parents’ level of interest and support for their children’s education was important. Middle class parents go Tit parents’ evening much more etc. (This might be because working class parents work shifts or don’t have cars and can’t get I leather though) Schools are middle class – they’re full of middle class teachers and work on middle class values such as deferred I gratification ( working hard now for a reward later). Working class kids don’t fit in and their knowledge is different – they I Event been to the same places, read the same books etc.

Also, middle class parents’ knowledge of education might help them I succeed – they understand how it all works (coursework etc) I Some believe working class place a low value on education. Criticisms of Material and Cultural Deprivation theories.. I They are Marxist theories – Marxist believe that this IS how the working class are made to fail – middle class kids do better I line exams, not because they’re cleverer but because they have the right experiences and money to help them. This way the I I working class are made to look thick and so they accept working class jobs.

I Being Marxist, they don’t look at the processes within schools (I. E. labeling) I They ignore the Functionalists point that the working class have only homeless to blame for not trying at school. They ignore the positive functions of education. Tithe theories generalize a lot – many working class children and parents do try hard and support education. Has no relevance to schools Bernstein It assumes working class culture Bernstein noted that working class children used restricted codes of language and middle class used elaborated codes.

This I Meant middle class kids had an advantage at school – they could read books and exam questions better and understand the Teachers better. Marxist say this is an important part of the cultural capital they have. Interactions would say this is I partly what makes teachers label them as thick too – it sounds like you’re not clever if you don’t use posh words! I Criticism – there are lots of middle class kids who don’t use elaborated codes and vice versa. Anyway, they’re just different, I loner’s no better or worse than the other.

Bob rider Broodier emphasized the cultural capital middle class kids have. They go abroad, get used to foreign language, practice math’s I ‘with exchange rates, go to theatre to see plays, have educational books at home etc. This means they have an advantage at I School. Parents pass on these ‘pro-school’ values to their children – this is called ‘cultural reproduction’. Criticism -? it might be more to do with material rather than cultural capital. And how does he explain many working class kids allow do well at school? 3.

Ethnicity and Differential Achievement in Education Some more facts……. (Mood’s study of 1997 found these out) High levels of achievement ; Chinese, African Asians, Indian are more likely to be better qualified than whites ; Afro-Caribbean women are more likely to have A-levels than white ; Ethnic minority groups are more likely to go to further education omen ; Ethnic minority group members born in UK have higher qualifications than those who moved here. Low levels of achievement ; For women, Bangladesh and Pakistani are least well qualified. For men, Afro-Caribbean, Pakistani and Bangladesh were least well qualified. Pakistani and Afro-Caribbean groups are less likely to go to university or if they do, to less well-known or less ‘posh’ ones. ; Afro-Caribbean boys are more likely to be excluded from school, put into lower bands and to be doing vocational courses. You must remember that there are big variations within each ethnic group – hey don’t all do well or badly! There are social and economic factors as well as their actual ethnic group to consider.

Some people believe some ethnic groups are simply cleverer than others and this explains it – but there?s no evidence for this when social and economic factors are taken into account.. On the other hand, we can’t blame it all on social and economic factors. In other words, when we take into account social class by just looking at the working class, there are still some ethnic groups who do worse. When we look at middle class only, there are still some ethnic groups who do better. So it’s to to be a combination of ethnicity and other factors. What are they, then?……..

Processes within the school I Labeling theory of Interactions says teachers have different expectations of different ethnic groups. They believe I I expectations lead to the self-fulfilling prophesy. Gilligan found teachers negatively label black students. Afro-Caribbean I I students were seen as a challenge to school authority. This is why they were labeled. I There is an ‘ethnocentric’ curriculum. This means its for one group of people – in this case, middle class white students. I Languages of Europe are learnt, not India. Assemblies, school holidays and history lessons don’t fit the culture of ethnic I I groups.

I There is ‘institutional racism’ in schools -? they don’t mean to be but are. Wright found Asian girls got less attention from I Teachers despite teachers believing they weren’t racist at all. The girls felt teachers were disapproving of their customs I too. Afro-Caribbean boys Were more likely to be punished for doing the same things as the white boys. Some sociologists say this all leads to some ethnic groups have low self- esteem. If they think badly of themselves they wont be motivated and won’t ray -so they’ll automatically fail. 1.

Mira found black girls had a positive image of themselves and high aspirations. They experienced discrimination but had ways of dealing with it to minimize its effect. It wasn’t low self-esteem which was their problem but being unwilling to ask for help (why would you if you felt the teachers weren’t bothered about helping you? ) or unwilling to choose certain subjects. 2. Mac an Gail studied 25 Afro-Caribbean and Asian a-level students. They all experienced some racism in education but dealt with it by avoiding the racist teachers and working well with others, for example.

Factors outside school I Language I Language was a barrier for Asian and Afro-Caribbean immigrant families when they first came here I I Swan report found language wasn’t in fact a problem for later generations Driver and Ballard found that Asian children’s language was as good as whites by age 16 I I Interactions say that nevertheless, dialects and accents will lead to labeling and teachers will assume they re English I I isn’t very good and put them in lower classes and self-fulfilling prophesy again!

I Family Differences I Driver and Ballard say close-knit extended families and high parental expectations of Asian families increases their I achievement. I The high levels of divorce and single-parenthood in Afro-Caribbean families could explain boys’ underachievement – material I Deprivation just like other working class kids. I could explain why the girls do well too; they realism they can’t depend on I men when they’re older so need qualifications for a job for themselves. Mothers are a positive role model for them too. Lillian families are usually middle class so this helps explain why their children do well.

It explains why Indian girls do as I I well as Indian soy too, since Indian families support their daughters as much as their sons. Those argument which just look factors inside school (Interactions) might look weak. Those argument which just look at factors outside school might look weak too – but when you combine them it’s all quite interesting. It gets more complicated, of course, but it is probably quite complicated why some groups do well. It could be just like the Marxist say – middle class do better than working class and we can see that some ethnic groups are more working class than others.

They say that class is all we need to look at – but it’s not hat simple; ethnicity obviously has an effect too since black working class often do worse than white working class. It could be just like the Functionalists say – working class have a poor attitude to school and those ethnic groups which are working class have a poor attitude – but it’s not that simple! Some ethnic groups are working class yet appear to have very supportive parents – why do they do even worse than white working class then? Ethnicity obviously has an effect! So obviously we can see that social class has some effect, but it can’t be the full explanation.

This is where the Interactions theory on labeling is helpful as it shows how these groups are labeled differently in school due to their ethnicity. 4. Gender and Differential Achievement in Education Even more facts for you ; Girls get better results in all levels of National Curriculum tests better results in most subjects at GEESE ; Girls are more likely to pass their A-levels ; Women are more likely to go on to university ; Girls ; Men have more success at higher level courses at university and get higher better qualifications there ; Girls go for common actions subjects like

English and Sociology and boys for technical ones like Math’s and Physics. Girls did under-achieve until about 15 years ago and these were the reasons given….. I Girls matured physically earlier than boys so did well in early education but boys caught up and overtook by age 16. I Girls were socialized by family, media and teachers into thinking they would be housewives so didn’t need a job and didn’t I I need to do well at school. I I Girls got less attention by teachers as boys were more assertive.

Girls were negatively labeled by teachers as not I interested. I Education was controlled and run by men and they saw boys as being more important. Better now? Factors inside the school. I So why do girls do so much Mottos and Brown say teaching has been ‘feminists’ – far more women are teachers now and so girls have more positive role I Models. I Textbooks and resources have changed and don’t stereotype girls so much now I I National Curriculum forced girls into doing ‘boys”subjects like science.

Other government initiatives encourage them too I I Gases include more coo rework and girls are better at that since they are more organized, put in more effort and can incinerate for longer. Boys give up on it and want immediate gratification – they don’t like working on something over a long I period of time without a reward. Why do girls do so much better now? Factors outside the school….. I Policies like Equal Pay Act and Sex Discrimination Act have created more opportunities for girls in society. This has changed Values in society and attitudes in school.

I I Sue Sharpe found that girls’ priorities have changed -they now want careers and therefore qualifications. They see adult women line work more so have positive role models -? they don’t just see housewives! Also, they don’t want to be financially dependent I Ion men any more – they want to earn their own money. I I Boys spend a lot of time being active -? girls spend more time reading and communicating so language skills develop more and I large useful in most subjects. I Feminists have made people more aware Of patriarchy and inequality.

Attitudes have changed and people are less sexist. Let’s be more clear about why boys now under-achieve…. I Boys see women being independent, men not being the breadwinner anymore, high male unemployment etc. Why bother doing well in I School? You’re not likely to have to support a family – you might even get a job! This leads to anti-school subcultures. I Interactions say teachers now label boys negatively. They see boys not bothering – especially with coursework. Self-fulfilling prophesy again.

I Fenestration means boys don’t have so many role models any more. They see women being in charge all around them. I lilt’s not ‘cool’ or masculine for boys to be seen reading. His will hamper their progress in schools because language skills I Didn’t develop. Perhaps they live with their mothers only and don’t see Dad as role model purporting the family. Why the gender difference in subject choice? ; Probably still influenced by solicitation – still attitude that some subjects are girl and some masculine and you’re odd if you do the ‘wrong’ one for your gender!

Science is seen as very masculine and mainly boys do it – Biology is seen as alright for girls to do as it’s to do with people largely (bodies) and leads to nursing (caring! ) ; Parents and teachers are still quite old fashioned! They encourage boys and girls into traditional subjects. Different subjects lead to different jobs – doing the ‘wrong’ subject may not e too much of a problem for some people, but going on to the ‘wrong’ job might be. A girl would have to be very confident to go into the male dominated world of engineering 5.

Please follow and like us:
Haven’t found the essay you want?