Parsons, Davis and Moore believe that the education system is a means of role allocation. The harder you work the greater the rewards you will receive, it’s a meritocracy. The most talented and hardworking individuals gain the best qualifications and ultimately the best paid jobs.
Marxists believe that intelligence and effort within the education system only have a small effect on overall achievement. There is only a faint link between educational qualification and the income gained from the pupil’s final career. Bowles and Gintis believe that the link between Education and the Economy is one of “correspondence”, just as capitalism is built on the exploitation of the many by the few. So school is guilt on the subordination of the students, their obedience and conformity of the system. Bowles and Gintis also believe that there is an illusion of equality of opportunity. They think that because the dominant culture is taught the less dominant cultures of the working class will fail or achieve less that the middle classes. They say that there is a “hidden Curriculum” that is also taught in schools, that isn’t written down or taught as openly as the other subjects. Capitalism needs a subservient work force and this is achieved through the hidden curriculum. The students who conform will get the best grades, so it encourages the acceptance of the hierarchy. The subjects in school are fragmented and split up so the knowledge is also separated. This is mirrored in the world of work; each job is separated into tasks carried out by individuals. A functionalist would say that this is the best way for people to learn in school and to get jobs done. It makes it easier to learn, understand and complete tasks. They also argue that because the Marxist view was developed a long time ago it is no longer accurate because a lot has changed since then. The Marxists have been accused of exaggerating the connection between work and education. The Functionalists claim that much of modern work requires team work and the education system promotes competition and effort.
Willis accepts the Marxist view that the education system is closely linked to the needs of capitalism. But he, unlike some Marxists, doesn’t believe that there is such a simple relationship between education and the economy. He found that a number of children, mostly working class, rejected the hidden curriculum. They formed a counter school culture and had little respect for teachers, school rules or authority. They think that “having your head screwed on” and “knowing a bit about the world” is more important than qualifications. Willis helped overcome the simplification of the role of the education system in society. But some people say his sample is too inadequate for the generalising the role of school in our society. He largely ignores the importance of sub-cultures in schools, most people fall in between conformity and rejection. Willis may have also misinterpreted some evidence to fit his own theories. His work was also done in the 1970s, so the attitudes of the working class males may have changed.
Both perspectives have their strengths and weaknesses. They agree on some aspects, but disagree on others and how they feel about them. The Marxist is the most realistic in its approach, because they can see the weaknesses in the education system. They also see that there isn’t always an equality of opportunity, but all they appear to do is criticise the Functionalist perspective. Marxists don’t seem to offer any alternatives, answers or ways to right the wrongs they see. This is where the Functionalist approach is stronger. It offers reasons why things are the way they are. They see it has function to fulfil and hwy it has it and how it is fulfilled. There is a division of labour with the highest paid jobs going to those with the best qualifications. The lower paid jobs still have to be done and people still have to do them. It makes sense that the people with the least qualifications have to do the lower paid, less attractive jobs. What would be the point in getting lots of qualifications, such as a degree, and getting a job where you don’t use them or even need to have them. Having said this it is still down to the individual what they do with their qualifications, or whether they get them at all. The Marxists believe the jobs should be open to all and that the different jobs should have more equal wages and opportunities. Overall the Functionalist approach is strongest because it offers more than just criticisms. It explains why the education system is the way it is. Is has its weaknesses, but so does the Marxist view. Marxism is a conflict theory which isn’t totally correct. Unfortunately the system is unfair; some groups of people are disadvantaged and more likely to fail through no fault of their own. This is what the Marxists are trying to say. Is should be fair and there should be an equality of opportunity, which the functionalists say this is, but there isn’t. They believe in the hidden curriculum, where the children are taught to be subservient and obey authority with out question and give them respect when they get no respect back. This is probably true in most schools, but that just the way school is. There would be chaos if the children were equal with the teachers and did what they wanted, they wouldn’t learn anything. It just they way things work best and nothing will change until an alternative is found. This is why the functionalist approach is stronger because it is the best way to do things. Some people have to have more power and better jobs. Children have to be told what to do or they wouldn’t learn anything.
