Outline and evaluate Functionalism view of education

Next the second function he described was the teaching of specialist skills. Modern industrial economies have a complex division of labour, where the production of single items usual involves the cooperation of many different specialists. This cooperation promotes social solidarity as we have to work together to keep society peaceful. Although for this to be successful each person must have the necessary skills and knowledge to perform the role. Durkheim argues that education teaches individuals the specialist skills they need to play their part in the social division of labour.

Again Marxists criticise the use of specialist skills in education as contributing to capitalism. By working in schools to gain these specialists skills, people are working towards jobs which are going to benefit the wealth of the bourgeoisie. These specialist skills are not set to help the individual but to help society run and exploit its working class workers. Education is seen as negative by the Marxists and without the working class getting together to overthrow the bourgeoisies power, society will continue to be unequal.

Another functionalist sociologists known as Talcott Parsons draws on many of these ideas put forward by Durkheim. Parsons sees schools as acting as a bridge between family and wider society. This bridge is needed because family and society operate on different principles, so children need to learn a new way of living if they are to cope with the wider world. Within the family the child is judged by particularistic standards and the child's status in the family is ascribed and fixed at birth. For example a young daughter and elder son may have different rights or duties depending on their age and gender. By contrast schools and wider society judge us all on universalistic standards. For example in schools all pupils have to sit the same exam and have the same pass mark. Parsons sees schools as preparing us to move from the family to wider society are both based on meritocratic principles. In meritocracy, everyone is given an equal opportunity, and individuals achieve awards through their own effort and ability.

Nonetheless this approach can be criticised as it can be said not everyone as equal opportunities as one another. Marxists say the education system helps to prevent the poor who believe they do not deserve this inequality from rebelling by producing ideologies that justify why inequality is natural in society today. Bowles and Gintis criticise Parson on the grounds in which they say meritocracy does not actually exist. Evidence shows that the main factor determining whether or not someone has a high income in their family and class background not their ability or educational achievement. By disguising this fact, the myth of meritocracy serves to justify the privileges of the higher class, making it seem that they gained them through open and fair competition at school.

Next Davis and Moore take on Parsons View too and see education as a device for selection and role allocation but they focus on the relationship between education and social inequality. They argue that inequality is necessary to ensure that the most important roles in society are filled by the most talented. For example it would be dangerous to have a less able person working as a surgeon or airline pilot. Not everyone is equally talented so it is necessary and this encourages healthy competition between people in society today and its members can select the most talented individuals to fill these high paid jobs. Education is seen as playing a key part in this process and it gives individuals the chance to show their ability. The most talented who are able to gain the highest qualification, will gain entry to the most important and highly rewarded positions.

Although Turmin criticises Davis and Moore for putting forward a circular argument. For example how do we know that a job is important? Because it is highly reward. Why are some jobs more highly rewarded than others? Because they are more important. This does not allow for any other answers to be put forward. Society here again as argued by the Marxists is only benefitting the bourgeoisie as the working class will find it very difficult if ever to gain the higher paid jobs, while the middle and upper class will find it less of a challenge to gain these types of jobs.

Also unlike Davis and Moore, the New Right argue the state education system fails to prepare young people for adequate work. This is because state control of education discourages efficiency, competition and choice. Even if a young child is talented it does not mean they have the ability to go on to hard labour at work as they are not taught these types of norms and values in the workplace.

Overall it can be said functionalists see the state education system as acting as a positive role towards society and its members. They see the need for social solidarity in society today as then people feel they are part of society and will live a happier life. Everyone in education as the same opportunities as one another and this meritocracy in society is essential for healthy competition to continue between its members. We will always have more talented people in society who will gain the higher jobs as different individuals are seen as having the skills to be a surgeon while others have the skills to be a nursery teacher looking after small children. The education system just helps to show individuals what they can gain out of society and they are allocated a role on their ability to do a certain job.