The historical development of education.

University Degree Education and Teaching

Sociology of Education Assignment

Criteria 1A, 1B, 2A, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 5A

Society, Schools and Culture

In this essay I will start by looking at the historical development of education. The initial Education Act was brought out in 1870 where compulsory education was first introduced though never enforced. The students of this time would study the three R’s, “reading, riting, rithmetic”; this was provided to create a work force.

The 1944 Butler Act introduced the eleven plus as well as a meritocratic system. Grammar, comprehensives and technical schools were established.

In 1976 Jim Callaghan initiated the ‘great debate’ around the methods and standards in education. 1988 saw the incoming of the Education Reform Act which brought in the National curriculum. Children were now to be tested at the ages of 7, 11, 14 and 16 to try and raise school standards. They had to study Maths, Science, English, History, Geography, Technology, Music, Art and Physical Education; at the age of 11-16 they were required to study a foreign language. Up to this point schools were run by the local education department. Schools could ‘Opt out’; if they did this then they would get their money straight from the government. This meant that these schools would look after their own budget just like an individual Company. The idea was that if schools had more responsibilities then they would act in a more responsible way. Parents were also given more rights; they were theoretically able to choose what school their children went to but as a consequence larger class sizes were needed. In the late 1980’s to the early 1990’s Vocationalism was introduced, by the conservatives, to meet the needs of the economy. These courses were set up for those students who were not going to gain results through the normal routes, for example GCSEs. It gave a valid alternative route into further education as these provided students with GCSE’s and ‘A’ levels. In 1992 OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) inspection was set up to try and look at the standards.

This was linked to the amount of funding a school was given; if they had a

good ofsted report then their funding was increased or stayed the same, whereas if they had a bad report then they could be looking at reduced funding or if the report was extremely bad then the school would be closed down. In 1993 the Dearing report came out which revised the national curriculum; as a result children were not tested quite so much and schools relaxed a little. Status change became more assessable as the process of becoming a grant maintained school or ‘opting out’ was varying. “By April 1996, 643 schools had opted out (Woods, Bagley and Glatter 1998)”.

Another change was that secondary schools were now able to specialise in parts of the national curriculum for example music. The LEA (local education authority) was given extra funding to help reduce truancy and truancy league tables were also put into place. Lastly in 1993- 1996 the Education Act included a code of practice for children with special educational needs which says that this group of children should not be excluded from the national curriculum.

I am now going to look at the three main sociological perspectives on education and mass schooling (Functionalist, Marxist and Social Action) one by one to evaluate their similarities and how they differ from each other.

Functionalism is also known as structural-functionalism, consensus, or equilibrium. The two main people that are known to have looked extensively into the functionalist perspective are Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) and Talcott Parsons (1961).

The functionalist approach looks at macro level views (a significant macro level is education as a public body); an example of a small macro level would be classroom communications as well as the culture of the school: in other words important community and cultural systems. Durkheim tried to understand why education changed as it did; he didn’t want to judge these changes as many others had. Durkheim, in his book entitled Education and sociology (1956), wrote:-

“Education is the influence exercised by adult generations on those that are not yet ready for social life. Its object is to arouse and to develop in a child a certain number of physical, intellectual and moral states which are demanded of him by both the political society as a whole and the special milieu for which he is specifically destined.”

In the functionalist perspective schools’ first role is to pass on information about behaviours as well as the knowledge that is necessary to preserve order in society. Schools are seen as important places to encourage this: children learn to be sociable and develop the correct behaviours that our society expects as well as to obey the social norms.

The functionalist approach has three main theories of society: firstly to encourage people to work together (an example of this is social institutions such as schools), secondly social grouping, which is based on compromise and unanimous agreements and thirdly striking a balance between institutions.

The functionalist approach views education as a way of maintaining and promoting social order. It teaches students what they need to know to be successful future employees. It selects those of higher ability and acts as an agent of socialisation for those (such as those in the working class) who might otherwise not conform to the “social norms”. Students can reach their highest capacity; functionalists do not believe that children should or can reach the same level.

The conflict theory comes from the writings of Karl Marx and Max Weber (1864-1920). Marx did not at all agree with capitalism; ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

The conflict theory comes from the writings of Karl Marx and Max Weber (1864-1920). Marx did not at all agree with capitalism; he was “outraged” by the social situation, workers in the class system being exploited. He felt that everyone should have an equal chance to have control, power, wealth and access to the best education, the same privileges that the higher classes get including power and influence.

Bowels and Gintis (“Schooling in Capitalist America”) also wrote from the Marxist perspective; they believe that although ideally everyone should have the same chances and choices, in fact education maintains the existing social differences.

Max Weber looked at a specific part of the conflict theory, the power relationships, how relationships in groups shape the foundation of societies and how status affects the persons rank in the group.

Weber feels that the schools main action is to teach the children about certain “Status Cultures”. He feels that the influential groups in society affect the way education changes and ‘shapes’; this is seen in schools even now as there are ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’. ‘Insiders’ have a higher status and as students are encouraged by their school experience whereas ‘outsiders’ tend to have a lower status and find school a hard place to be and to achieve in. In schools today there are minority groups: Weber’s theory is still relevant as it looks at conflict and domination. Varying groups will fight for ‘Power’ and ‘Status’; education then appears to become a bit like a competition.

This links with Karl Marx’s hypothesis

“Education produces a disciplined labour force for military, political, or other areas of control and exploitation by the elite”

(The sociology of education 2001).

and it clearly shows that Marx does not agree with mass education.

Randall Collins (1978) who is also a conflict theorist looks at ‘credentialism’, a way for the higher classes to reach better positions, which then lead to a higher status. Marx and Weber established some branches off the conflict theory today. Research shows that the conflict perspective tends to look at conflict and power and the antagonism that these can cause. Some theorists feel that education is used as a tool in the capitalist society as higher education is controlled by entrance requirements. Another branch of the conflict theory is “Cultural reproduction and resistance theories”. This theory looks at the how dominant groups shape and form people for their own gain; in the 1960’s for example this would have been done through family and schools. If someone goes to a poor urban school they are more likely to have a lower “Cultural capital” as your school and family provides your status and your status give you a “Cultural capital”.

The Social Action theory is also known as interactionist and interpretive theory. It leads from George Herbert Mead (1863-1931) and C.H. Cooley’s work on

“The development of self through social interaction, whether in school or other situations”

This theory has been used more and more since the world war two and it highlights the social psychological questions.

The interactionist concentrate on the importance of interactions and looks at what goes on in the classroom. This approach does not look at the dynamics of everyday school life but focuses on relationships: between groups of children and their peers; teacher pupil relationships; teacher and Head teacher and how they evaluate students attitudes and achievements; student values; students’ self-concepts and their ambition as well as “socioeconomic status” as this will have an effect on the pupils’ achievements.

This perspective looked at labelling children and how this affects how they are taught, learn and achieve. This angle is against negative labelling as it can affect the attention children are given and how they are expected to achieve at a lower standard by teachers. The social action perspective believes in equality of treatment; for example if a child is constantly told they are stupid, this negative label becomes part of his/her thinking and his/her behaviour will adapt to that label. In the book “Deviance in classrooms (1975)” by David H. Hargreaves, Stephen k. Hester and Frank j. Mellor, they examine the ways in which pupils are stereotyped. For example at the beginning of a year a teacher knows very little of their pupils; they may know which area a child is from or catchment area: this is the beginning of the teacher’s image of the child. They may come from a rough area so the teacher might start assuming that the child will be badly behaved and difficult. If a child is given this label from the beginning and always expected to behave in this way, then the child’s behaviour may well grow to that label.

Hargreaves et al believe that there are three stages of stereotyping: the first stage is called speculation in which a teacher looks at the children and by their appearance, behaviour, ability and enthusiasm, friendliness, peer relationships, guesses their personality and if they will obey the ‘social norms’. Hargreaves says that teachers only make initial assumptions at this stage and will change their opinions if the child proves them wrong. The second stage is called elaboration in which the teacher’s views are either proved right or wrong. The third stage, called stabilisation, is no longer based on assumptions: the teacher knows the child and understands him/her.

Another interactionalist approach is the exchange theory which talks about how there are rewards and penalties in our interactions with other people. We have to look not only at how a teacher interacts with pupils but also at how the pupils respond to the teacher.

Now, having examined the different sociological perspectives on education, I am going to look at their similarities and differences. There are not many similarities: both Talcott Parson, who is a functionalist, and Karl Marx have a deterministic view of society. Both perspectives look at the bigger picture and the role of education within society.

On the other hand there are quite a few differences. The Marxist approach is against mass education whereas the functionalist perspective is in favour of it.

The Marxist perspective believes that everyone should have a chance to access the same education while the functionalist think that education is about creating the workforce and those who will not do well academically should learn a manual skill and work.

The social action is the only theory looking at the individuals’ relationships i.e. pupil to pupil and teacher to pupil, whereas the Marxist and the functionalists look more at the day to day school life. The social action model is against labelling whilst Marxists and the functionalists disagree: labels help the workforce.

The functionalists feel that identified roles (pupil, teacher) are unmoveable whereas the social action perspective feels that these roles are more flexible.

The functionalists believe that schools are a place of control the Marxist agree in part but they feel that the control is class based.

The functionalists believe that schools are agencies of social control and that this has a positive effect on education. They feel that the major function of schools is to pass on knowledge and behaviours so that order is upheld in society. They believe that control is constructive as it provides a workforce able to conform to the “social norms” expected as well as a workforce with values like discipline, respect, obedience, punctuality and perseverance. When there is a great amount of control the workforce is compliant; the functionalists believe that people can be “trained to fit” into society in acceptable ways. This theory believes that school rules should be imposed and strictly obeyed and the punishment that a child receives illustrates the seriousness of breaking rules.

The Marxist approach does not see social control as a positive thing as they believe that every child should have an equal opportunity regardless of class or status and having social control leaves an unequal balance in the class systems. They believe that mass education still restricts higher education to the upper classes by controlling the access i.e. entrance fees.

I think that I agree with the Marxist approach in as much as I believe that everyone has an equal right to have access to the same education. I do believe, as the functionalists say, that rules are needed to maintain some order but they do not need to be too strict, just enough to encourage some learning such as obedience, respect and discipline.

Culture is the combination of “norms” and “values” that belong to a particular group; this could be defined as a way of life which includes everyday things like the way people dress, ways of greeting, showing respect as well as more significant things like language and methods of communication. These are just a few examples of the many things that are associated with the idea of culture.

The concept of culture is strongly linked with the concept of identity. A simple explanation of identity is how people define themselves and how they are defined by other people. A person’s identity will include their uniqueness, distinctiveness and personality and all those characteristics which together form their individual make up.

Culture is obviously part of identity but there is more to a person’s definition of themselves; for example race, gender and sexuality will be some of the factors that form identity.

Gender is sometimes an issue as there may be different expectations of children for example boys may be thought of as noisy trouble makers and girls as the good quite children. John Abraham completed a study on ‘Typical boys’ and ‘Typical girls’ and after talking to eight different teachers he came up with five different categories from the teachers’ comments. The first category was the less typical boys, who were ‘girly’ and immature. The second group, the more typical boys, were not committed, naughty and too flirty with the girls. The third group who are the ‘typical girls’ are thought to have inadequate confidence, be neat and tidy, obedient, “very quiet and pleasant” and hard workers. The forth group was thought to be the most unlikely ‘typical girls’, tomboyish, scruffy and not forming bonds with other girls. The final group of girls seemed a bit of both, typical yet also not typical: these girls were aggressive, non conformists and only really bothered with appearance and boys. This way of looking at things could be difficult as not everyone may slot into any of these categories. These types of stereotypes could affect children education as all these groups will be given different amounts of attention and expectations without taking into account their individuality.

I am now going to explore how both identity and culture can influence educational achievement. This is very important as Britain is a multicultural society and pupils in schools will have different cultures and identities.

There are inequalities in the level of achievement between particular ethnic groups. There are different theories to explain why this happens. For example some research (Jensen 1973) says that there are genetic differences in the level of IQ. Language is very important, particularly in the early years of education. In families where English is not the first language spoken, children will be disadvantaged in an English speaking school. At the age of sixteen and above research shows this is not a major problem. Family life can also impact on a child’s education as in some cultures education is not thought to be the most important factor to define achievement in life. For some families it is part of their cultural background to believe that the girl's place is at home helping her mother not in school ‘filling her head with useless facts’. This may have an impact on the amount of support, encouragement and understanding a child is given. Some ethnic groups are thought to have more single parent families and a higher rate of divorce. This could cause a lot of disruption to a child’s education: it may be because the children get caught up in the middle of parents’ arguments during difficult times; they may never know where they are going to be from day to day due to constant moves between parents.

Black Caribbean children seem to be a particular group where there are more single parent families. As a consequence they are thought to be more likely to spend time without parental supervision as their parent may be working. This might be one of the reasons why they have poorer academic results when compared with other ethnic groups. This is clearly highlighted by looking at the percentage of black Caribbean 16-19 year olds in further education: 46% of men in full time education and 57% of women compared to Pakistani or Bangladeshi people where 71% of men and 54% of women are in further education.

It is believed that black children are made to feel inferior, as it is often felt that ‘black associated with evil and white with good’. Negative black history is taught rather then the positive achievements. Racism can happen in many subtle ways. For example obvious racism would include bullying because of colour but less obvious ways may include not teaching about other ethnic groups. The inability to pronounce a child’s name correctly could be perceived as racist behaviour because other children may laugh at the mistakes; this could lead to the child feeling embarrassed and uncomfortable.

Sub cultures are the way that pupils form groups and create rules to cope with life in school. David Hargeaves 1967 has “identified two distinct sub cultures: Conformist and non-conformist.” Conformists are the people that follow rules and non-conformists are the ones that don’t. Streaming and banding are ways of grouping children: the conformists are placed in a group of children (higher streams) who do better because they follow the rules; the non conformists will be considered the ‘naughty children’ because they don’t obey the rules. These children will be expected less of and consequently will be put into lower bands and labelled as failures. As a way of coping with these labels and the damage they may feel to their self esteem, they form what is called a sub culture, by finding other children like them. The rule of this sub culture may be that in order to be ‘cool’ you must break the rules.

Youth culture is another example of a sub culture; it is thought to consist of the same values and beliefs that all the adolescents share. Popular culture and youth culture are linked. Popular culture is the mixture of positive and negative messages that are received from all media (Internet, Radio and TV). This is thought to have a damaging impact on society as this type of communication does not always follow the social norms and young people are influenced by it.

Having looked at the influence of culture and identity on education, I will now move on to talking about social stratification. The word stratification comes from the word stratum meaning layer; social stratification is a way in which society is divided into different groups. This process is done on the basis of class and status. In British society (though this is probably more widely spread) there are three main classes which are upper, upper middle, lower middle, working and lower class. The distinctions between these classes are based on income, type of employment, level of education and status, among many other things.

Status is a person’s position that is preset by society, based on the same factors on which class is established but with some differences. A social assumption is that people with a high status are more likely to be respected and have a higher sense of worth. Examples of positions with a higher status are a company manager, doctors and judges; lower status positions may be a dustbin person or a post person. These are general judgements made by people and though they generally not personal judgements they can form the basis of stereotypes; for instance some people may think builders cannot write.

Both class and status are thought to have an impact on children’s education as children from middle class families are generally expected to do better in the education system because their parents know how to play the system. This may have something to do with the amount of ‘cultural capital’, a mixture of status, good education, power and knowledge that higher and middle class families have and working class parents might have less of. This may also be because these parents may hold similar beliefs, experiences, and common values with teachers and head teachers, almost being part of the same “high culture” which is the culture of middle class families.

Parents coming from working classes may be frightened of the educational system as they may not know how to fight the education institution to get the best for their child and may have had bad experiences in education themselves. They also may not have had good schooling themselves and as a consequence this could leave them feeling left behind or even make them feel ‘stupid’ as their children may know more then they do. Some people believe that working class parents feel that they are being treated in a condescending and patronizing way by teachers and resent them.

The ‘high culture’ parents are able to recognize the best schools because they will know about ofsted and how to access reports and league tables providing them with valuable information that lower class parents don’t know how to or can’t access.

Based on all the points that I have so far examined, particularly the difficulties that the lower classes experience in accessing good education, some might say that the institution of education may be a way to keep social stratification alive.