Durkheim believed that the major function of education was the transmission of society's norms and values. He claimed that schools perform two central functions, relating to social cohesion and the division of labour. In order to exist society members must share common beliefs and values - these are only partially taught by the family. The school continues this process and broadens the forms of behaviour and shares beliefs of the children. In modern societies the division of labour holds society so that schools train people for the different jobs available. The differential rewards that adults receive are seen by both successful, and the less successful, as justified and fair, because both groups had equal opportunities.
Educational failure is thus seen either as part of the way in which people are placed in society according to their ability (some people have to fail) or as evidence that the system isn't working properly. Functionalist writers point out that schools act as sieves grading out higher ability children. The least able therefore fail.
A conflict view of the education system is that it is a site of ideological struggle. It enforces class differences by helping the middle-class to succeed while preventing working class children from fulfilling their true potential. According to Poulantzaz the school is just part of the Ideological State Apparatus concerned with the manipulation of values and beliefs.
Educational failure is thus seen as due to the fact that schools are a mainly middle-class institution. Different groups have fundamentally different ideas and interests and therefore education will benefit some more than others.
There are various conflict theories which give different views about educational failure. For example Marxist approaches argue that the education system imposes the dominant values of the ruling class on the population; grades children according to their class background; trains people for jobs in order to produce greater profit; makes failure inevitable for the majority of the population, as it is the point of the system - to achieve and legitimise this failure.
Bowles and Gintis believed "Equality is an Illusion" in education as it is in the whole of society. They suggest that the prime purpose of schooling is to produce a willing, subservient workforce which will continue to help make profits for the ruling class and not to challenge their dominance of society. Children of wealthy and powerful tend to obtain high qualifications and highly rewarding jobs irrespective of their abilities. It is this the education disguises with its "Myth of Meritocracy" (Harralambos). Those who are denied success blame themselves, and not the system which has condemned them to failure.
Studies by Hargreaves and Lacey on the effects of streaming on pupils show that the self-perceptions of the pupils were strongley influenced by the stream that they were placed in. Teachers were shown to have lower expectations of the lower-band pupils and responded differently to them. The lower-band pupils in turn felt denied status. They responded by being anti-school and expressed this in Hargreaves study by rejecting the middle-class values that underlie the activities of the school, and behaving in ways which demonstrate this rejection; in Lacey's study by seeking out of school subcultures which were available to them.
A particularly important idea of micro-sociology is that of labelling. Ethnomethodologists such as Hargreaves, however, warn that educational failure would not be the inevitable result of someone being labelled as unintelligent or naughty. He found that teachers were constantly changing their minds and pupils didn't always recognise that they were being labelled or believed in the label being placed on them.
Macro-sociology and micro-sociology are not necessarily inconsistent with each other. Sometimes the one can compliment the other, particularly interationism and conflict theory. For example Sharp and Green who combine structural factors such as class race, gender etc. with the activities and perceptions of teachers - the interactionist approach. After studying a progressive primary school they argue that pressures from both within the school and the wider society ensure that teachers tend to have higher expectations from middle-class pupils.
Macro research reveals the higher the social class the higher the levels of educational achievement, but this approach does not take into account such factors as gender, race, religion etc. Similarly, micro-sociology describes the mechanism of educational failure rather than explaining it. Therefore it is difficult to reach a reliable explanation without analysing from both perspectives.
Education is such a vast area; the question of why some pupils underachieve in school is complex and has many answers. It is therefore unfair to look at this area from just a micro or macro perspective. To really understand the reasons behind under-achievement and give accurate analysis, you need to consider all perspectives, and take into account factors such as gender, race and class.
