SUMMARY
1.1 CONSENSUS THEORIES OF EDUCATION
Functionalism: 3 Main Functions
* Secondary socialisation
* Role allocation
* Providing skills for the economy
Durkheim
Education provides *secondary socialisation**, teaching universal norms and values → value consensus → social solidarity.
* Done through:
* Instilling solidarity: history (overt) + cooperation (hidden).
* Teaching social rules: discipline, self-control.
* Teaching specialist skills for work.
Evaluation
* Marxists: education spreads ruling-class ideology → false class consciousness.
* Postmodernists: outdated; society too diverse for value consensus.
* Hargreaves: schools promote individualism, not cooperation.
---
Parsons
Education = *bridge** between family + society.
Facilitates *role allocation** and meritocracy.
Moves from *ascribed** to achieved status.
Key Terms
* Meritocracy: jobs based on talent/effort.
* Achieved/Ascribed status
Evaluation
* Marxists: myth of meritocracy; success depends on class, gender, ethnicity (Bowles & Gintis).
---
Davis & Moore
Education sorts individuals for unequal but necessary roles → *social stratification**.
Evaluation
* Marxists: still the myth of meritocracy; many highly qualified people don’t get highest-paid jobs.
---
New Right
* Education should be marketised; run like a business.
* Parentocracy = parents in control.
Chubb & Moe
* Private schools do better because they are accountable to paying customers.
Evaluation
* Competition increases negative labelling + SFP.
* Private school success mainly due to social class and selectivity.
* Contradiction: New Right support national curriculum (state interference).
---
1.2 CONFLICT THEORIES OF EDUCATION
Marxism
Althusser
Education = *ideological state apparatus**, spreading ruling-class ideology.
* Formal + hidden curriculum teach hierarchy, obedience, prevent revolution.
Bowles & Gintis
* Correspondence principle: school mirrors work (hierarchy, discipline, rewards).
* Prepares workers for capitalism.
Evaluation
* Outdated due to diverse job types.
* Education sometimes encourages criticism of the system.
---
Paul Willis (Neo-Marxist)
* Studied working-class “lads”.
* Their anti-school culture prepares them for manual labour.
* Small rebellions prevent wider resistance.
Schools reproduce capitalism *unintentionally**.
---
Bourdieu
* Cultural capital → success.
Teachers with middle-class *habitus** favour similar students.
### Bernstein
* Language codes: restricted (WC) vs elaborate (MC).
* School uses elaborate → WC disadvantage.
Evaluation
* Teachers increasingly from diverse backgrounds, but may adopt MC habitus.
* Interactionists: individuals have agency and can resist structures.
---
Feminism
Education transmits *patriarchy** through hidden + formal curriculum.
* Liberal feminists: progress made; girls outperform boys, but some expectations still gendered.
* Radical feminists: patriarchy persists (e.g. sexual harassment).
* Black/intersectional feminists: ethnic minority girls face specific stereotypes.
Evaluation
* Education is female-dominated, yet gender pay gap and glass ceiling persist.
---
1.3 DIFFERENTIAL ACHIEVEMENT: SOCIAL CLASS
Statistics
* FSM pupils score significantly lower.
* Middle-class pupils almost twice as likely to get 5 GCSEs.
---
External Factors
Material deprivation
* Lack of resources (food, heating, equipment) → poor attendance + concentration.
* WC pupils may work part-time → less study time.
Cultural deprivation
* WC pupils may lack cultural resources:
* Sugarman: immediate vs deferred gratification.
* Douglas: WC parents place less value on education.
* Bourdieu: habitus advantage for MC.
* Social capital: networks benefit MC.
Evaluation
* Policies like EMA, pupil premium, free meals reduce impact.
* Hard to separate material and cultural deprivation.
---
Internal Factors
Labelling
* Teachers label WC pupils negatively → SFP.
Anti-school subcultures
* Willis’ “lads” reject school norms.
Language codes
* Elaborate code used in school disadvantages restricted code users.
Evaluation
* Inside and outside factors interact (Reay).
---
1.4 DIFFERENTIAL ACHIEVEMENT: GENDER
Statistics
* Girls outperform boys across most measures.
---
External Factors
Girls’ overachievement
* Feminism → changing attitudes (Sharpe).
* Legal changes (Equal Pay Act, Sex Discrimination Act).
* Girls mature earlier; stronger language skills.
* Changes in work, family, and media representations.
Boys’ underachievement
* Crisis of masculinity (Mac an Ghaill).
* New Right: welfare dependency reduces aspirations.
* Moral panic exaggerates boys’ failure.
Evaluation
* Girls still face inequality (pay gap, glass ceiling).
* New Right blames individuals not structures.
---
Internal Factors
Past underachievement of girls
* Teachers had low expectations; stereotype reinforcement; boys dominated.
Girls’ improvement
* Feminisation of education (Sewell).
* Coursework favoured girls (organisation).
* Initiatives like GIST/WISE.
* National curriculum reduces gendered subject choice.
* League tables encourage schools to focus on girls.
* Boys more likely to join anti-school subcultures.
Evaluation
* Coursework reduced; exams may favour boys.
* Boys improving too, just slower.
---
1.5 DIFFERENTIAL ACHIEVEMENT: ETHNICITY
Statistics
* Black pupils underperform.
* Indian and Chinese pupils overperform.
---
Out-of-school factors
* Language barriers minimal by age 16 (Driver & Ballard).
* Cultural differences: high expectations in Asian families (Archer & Francis).
* African-Caribbean families may face lone-parenthood + material deprivation.
* Class differences: underachieving ethnic groups more likely low-income.
Evaluation
* Pakistani pupils also have high expectations but still underachieve → class more important.
* Lone parenthood not strongly linked to underachievement.
---
In-school factors
* Language/accent → negative labels.
* Ethnocentric curriculum + Christian-based calendar.
* Institutional racism:
* Gillborn: higher expectations for Chinese/Indian pupils.
* Wright: unintentional discrimination.
* Subcultures: black/Asian boys often anti-school; Fuller’s black girls resisted labels; Mirza & Mac an Ghaill avoided school but valued education.
Evaluation
* Ethnocentric curriculum doesn’t explain white British underachievement.
* Subculture theories don’t explain why they form.
---
1.6 RELATIONSHIPS AND PROCESSES
Labelling
* Becker: labels → SFP.
* Rosenthal & Jacobson: positive labels improve achievement.
Ideal pupil
* Teachers have preferred characteristics → halo effect.
Triage (Gillborn & Youdell)
* Schools focus on borderline students; neglect “hopeless cases”.
Evaluation
* Hard to measure labelling impact.
* Ignores structural causes.
* Some pupils resist labels (Mirza).
---
Pupil subcultures
* Willis: anti-school “lads” prepare for manual labour.
Evaluation
* Postmodernists: subcultures are lifestyle choices, not structural.
---
Pupil identities
* Identity formed inside and outside school.
* Archer: MC habitus fits education; WC experience clash.
* WC students use brands to form identities → further marginalisation.
---
Hidden curriculum
* Unwritten rules learned in school.
Setting, streaming, banding
* Institutional labels affecting expectations and outcomes.
---
1.7 EDUCATIONAL POLICIES
1944 Tripartite System
* 11+ exam → grammar, technical, secondary modern.
* Intelligence categorised into academic, technical, practical.
Evaluation
* 11+ culturally biased; reproduced class inequality.
* 80% labelled failures; limited opportunities.
---
Comprehensive Schools
* Mixed ability; no selection.
Evaluation
* Setting/streaming still reproduce class divisions.
* School quality linked to area.
* Not fully meritocratic.
---
New Vocationalism
* BTECs, T-levels, apprenticeships.
Evaluation
* Class divide; less valued by employers/universities.
---
1988 Education Reform Act
* Marketisation:
* National curriculum
* SATs + league tables
* Formula funding
* Parental choice
Evaluation
* Restrictive curriculum.
* Negative labelling + neglect of lower achievers.
* Myth of parentocracy; MC advantage.
* Inequalities between schools increase.
---
New Labour Policies
* Academies, EMA, SureStart, Education Action Zones.
* Tuition fees introduced.
Evaluation
* Contradictory: reducing inequality while introducing fees.
* EMA later scrapped.
---
Privatisation (Ball & Youdell)
* Endogenous: schools act like businesses.
* Exogenous: private companies involved.
Evaluation
* Limited evidence of improved standards (e.g. Sweden).
---
Globalisation
* Education responds to global economy; adopts policies from other countries.
Evaluation
* Some doubt extent of globalisation; systems may not transfer effectively.