Functionalist view of education

Functions of education

Durkheim - social cohesion

Durkheim said education was key in the socialisation process and are key secondary agents of socialisation. The family, immediate people and groups surrounding a child provides primary socialisation. They teach them the essentials of society, the norms and values and the ways of behaving in the home. When they go to school these are reinforced through the education system adding to the socialisation that happens in the home. As a secondary agent of socialisation, it reinforces the positive socialisation for society and maybe negates the negative norms and values that might be more familial or sub-cultural. Durkheim believes that this is a really important element of education to maintain social cohesion.

Parsons - bridging effect

Parsons developed Durkheim’s views further. He talks about how the education system acts as a bridge between family and society in general and talks about particularistic and universalistic values. Particularistic values are a normal behaviour or value that is unique to a particular person in a particular context, behaviours that are accepted in the home but may not be accepted in wider society. Universalistic values are the values society says we should be aiming for and the norms of behaviour that allow us to be part of society. Parsons viewed the education system as a place where students can learn the universalistic values, make social mistakes without having too much of an impact because the purpose of education is to teach these values therefore letting young people to be able to engage in society as a whole and be an active positive member of society. This understanding is the key role of education because people are able to be a part of society and maintain that cohesive nature because all members are following the same set of rules and values.

Evaluation

It assumes children are passive puppets of socialisation that they receive in schools. They just accept it and change their behaviour. This is not the case because there are behaviour issues in schools, anti-school subcultures and the formation of other subcultures within schools. This shows us that children will act against norms and values they don’t agree with, they don’t understand or know why they have to behave in a certain way. The fact children are asking why and requiring that explanation of certain behaviours or beliefs show us that children are not passive puppets.

Another criticism is the idea of dysfunction and the view that schools are not always positive places. It can be quite negative for some people and we can see that through bullying, the ethnocentric curriculum or institutional racism within schools where not all students have a positive experience. This may mean that they reject those universalistic values that are being taught.

A final criticism is that there is a value consensus in society suggesting we all have the same values, goals and desires in life and that’s what keeps society stable and cohesive. This is not the case because we have diversity within society. Different family types, different career paths and choices that people make. Durkheim and Parsons view suggests that perhaps there is but that is not the case.

Shultz - human capital

Shultz talks about the education system developing human capital. He suggests that investment in education benefits the wider economy and therefore benefits society as a whole and creates that cohesive nature because a society with a stable economy has less social conflict. Shultz argues that education can provide properly trained, qualified and flexible workforce and ensure that the skills necessary for a society to continue and to get better and move forward. This development of human capital means it allows every person within the society to have a place and an appropriate role to play.

Davis and Moore - role allocation

Davis and Moore talk about role allocation meaning that the education system sifts and sorts people into the social hierarchy which is linked to the idea of meritocracy. People are able to access the best jobs, wealth and status because they have talent or have worked hard, its not to do with social structures. All other social structures are in to benefit and support the education system. For Davis and Moore, the education system is a way of sorting people to the best possible position that they should have in society.

Evaluation

Marxists point out the myth of meritocracy because your gender, ethnicity and social class all have an impact on your educational achievement. The education system is built by the middle class for the middle class so they are able to attain better grades, achieve more within their education which then allows them to access more high paid jobs or access higher social status. Furthermore, private schools work on a who you know type system. Even if you don’t do well academically, the connections you make can still get the high powered jobs and status.