However, the functionalist theory can be critised by looking at different ideas, such as those of the Marxist theory. Bowles and Gintis (1976) say that meritocracy is in fact a myth, as some people start education with benefits such being born into a middle-class family with educated parents, private schooling and material advantages. This concept of cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1971) means that these children have a more chance of doing better at school than the working class. Bowles and Gintis also argue that school reproduces class structure, with pupils being taught to accept the hierachy of society from a young age. Willis (1977) argues that labelled pupils 'learn to labour', resulting in working class pupils going on to do working class jobs. He suggests that the formation of anti-school subcultures has a strong resemblance to the culture found in a workplace, with opposition to acadamia and authority forming as a way of learning to cope with the boredom of repetative work. Furthermore, Marxism argues that this is in fact beneficial as it produces a cheap pool of labour and workers who can fulfill the menial roles that the middle class will not.
However, by focusing on the class system, some may argue that the Marxism does not take into account other important factors. Both Marxism and Functionalism are structural theories which can be critisized by the ideas of Interactionism. This theory goes on the idea that all people are individuals and the level of achievement in education is in fact down to the way they interact with others. Unlike Marxism, it rejects the notion of a social system and instead suggests it is down to individuals to improve society as opposed to society as a whole (Haralambos et al, 2008). This can explain that the way pupils behave is in fact a result of the label they are given by teachers, which may lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy. Sociologists claim the labelling of pupils can have an important effect upon their progress, with teachers in a position to affect it in a direct or indirect way. Teachers generally differentiate between pupils by adding them into different sets according to label, potentially affecting their overall results (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk).
In conclusion, these three sociological theories each have their own way of explaining educational achievement, with each being critical of one another. Functionalism strongly opposes Marxism in the idea that meritocracy is in fact a myth and we all go on to do what we are taught to do whilst still in school, whereas Interactionism says that it is in fact the outcome of our relationships with teachers and the labelling we are are subject to in school that determines what we will do later in life.
Reference List
1. Haralambos M, Holborn M, Heald R (2008), Sociology Themes and Perspectives, London: HarperCollins Publishers Ltd
1. Parsons, R (2004) AS Level Sociology: AQA Revisions Guide, UK: CGP Publishings Ltd.
1. Interactionism,
Available online at: http://www.historylearningsite.com/interactionism
[Accessed 10 November 2012]
Bibliography
1. Bilton T, Bonnet K, Jones P, Skinner D, Stanworth M, Webster A (1981), Introductory Sociology, Macmillan Press Ltd.
1. Csaky T, Hallam G, Von Kotze L, Reed K (2001) A2 Level Sociology: Exam Board AQA, UK: CGP Publishings Ltd.
1. Cameron J, Peace M, Flowers T, Watts D, Wright M, Hart M, Renton N (2008), AQA A2 Sociology, UK: Nelson Thornes
