Parsons was an American sociologist writing in the 1950s. He argued that schools acts as a focal socialising agency, where school acts as a bridge between the family and society as a whole and prepared children for their adult role. Parson are stated that within the family the child is judged on particularistic values and in a society the child is judged on universalistic standards, which are standards applied to every individual in society. The child moves from particularistic standards to universalistic standards. This is important in an increasingly complex and specialised division of labour.
Within the family status is ascribed, whereas in the school status is largely achieved. Schools encourage achieved status and school is also important from moving children from their particularistic and ascribed status to their universalistic and achieved status, the school prepares the children for this transmission and prepares them for society as a whole. Within schools, education operates on a meritocratic basis. Standards are applied to all students regardless of sex, race, family background or class. Parsons, like Durkhiem stated that school represent society in miniature. Modern industrial society is largely based on achievement than ascribed status and universalistic rather than particularistic standards. This shows that school prepares children for their adult role.
Parsons said that school socialises young people into the basic values of society and that value consensus is essential for society to operate efficiency. In American schools they instil two major functions, the value of achievement and the value of quality of opportunity. It rewards people who were successful and everyone competes on equal terms and the winners and losers see the system as fair. These values reflect society, advanced industrial societies require a highly motivated, achievement-oriented workforce. Parsons saw schools as a mechanism for future role allocation in their future roles in society. The school is seen as a major mechanism for role allocation.
Davis and Moore agreed with Parsons that education is a way of role allocation, but they 1inked it more closely with closely with the social stratification system. The education system sifts, sorts, and grades individuals to their talents and abilities. It rewards the most able with better qualifications and therefore better jobs which are functionally more important to society.
There are a number of criticisms of Davis and Moore, one is that income is only weakly linked to educational attainment. A second criticism is that intelligence has little effect on educational attainment and also that social stratification prevents the education system from efficiently grading individuals in term of ability.
Bowles and Gintis based their study on schooling in capitalist America. They argue that the major role of education is the reproduction of labour power. The correspondence principle provides the key to understand the workings of the education system. Education is subservient to the needs of those who control the workforce and the means of production.
Bowles and Gintis see the education system as a place where students learn the norms and values of the workplace, this is important because if capitalism to succeed they need a hardworking, docile, obedient and highly motivated workforce. Students learn this through the schools hidden curriculum, this is what pupils learn through the experience of attending school.
The hidden curriculum shapes the future workforce in the following ways. It provides a subservient workforce by penalising creativity, aggressiveness and independence and rewarding perseverance consistency, dependability and punctuality. It also encourages acceptance of hierarchy, students obey teachers, and this reflects the workplace where they obey their employers. At school students are encouraged be external reward just as a workforce in capitalist society are rewarded by external rewards. School promotes fragmentation of the curriculum, this is reflected in the workplace where specific tasks are carried out by different people. Further more education makes society feel fair and just. The workers are socialised to believe that equality of opportunity exists and that the system is meritocratic, this is called the legitimisation of inequality.
Bowles and Gintis reject the Functionalists perspective of Parsons and Davis and Moore that the education system is meritocratic, and deny that this can become so with a capitalist framework. They reject the view that we all compete on equal terms and claim that the children of wealthy and powerful tend to obtain highly rewarding jobs, irrespective of their abilities. The education system disguises this with its myth of meritocracy. Those who are denied success blame themselves and not the system. Their argument is based on studies that are conducted on people with their average IQs. They say that if education was meritocratic they would have similar outcomes, however they found a wide variety of outcomes. Bowles and Gintis found that those from higher class backgrounds with average IQs did better that low from lower class with similar classes. They concluded that the longer he/she remains in education the higher their qualifications, IQ is a consequence of stay in education and that the education system doesn't operate as a meritocracy.
If Bowles and Gintis are correct then the education system is a gigantic myth-making machine. It creates and propagates the following myths. Educational attainment is based on merit. Occupational reward is based on merit and education is the route to success in the world. They concluded that those at the top deserve their power and privilege that that have achieved their status on merit and those at the bottom have themselves to blame. The education system efficiently disguises that economic success runs in the family and therefore rejects the Functionalists view between education and stratification.
There are many criticism are Bowles and Gintis, the critics tend to agree that they have exaggerated the correspondence between work and education and not providing sufficient evidence to support their position. Hickox (1982) said that compulsory education in Britain was introduced before industrialisation and capitalism prospered without an educated workforce. They have also been criticised because there have been changes in the nature of work organisation and there is more emphasis placed on teamwork. Bowles and Gintis have also been criticised for not carrying detailed research on schools and assumed the hidden curriculum was actually influencing people. Reynolds argues that many subjects such as sociology don't promote the development of an ideal employer under capitalism. Another criticism is on legitimating inequality and creating the myth that success is based on merit in education. Hickox notes that only 2.5% of English workers saw a link between class and education most thought that family and economic factors were more important. David Reynold said that it's difficult for capitalists to control schools and said it's difficult because when most teachers close the door they work independently.
Paul Willis (1977) recognised the existence of conflict within the education system and he rejects the view that there is any simple, direct relationship between the economy and the way the education system operates. Willis studied a working class school in a predominantly industrial small town. He followed 12 working class lads during their last 18 months at school and first 12 months at school. They had formed their own counter0school culture, which went against the norms and values of the school. They felt superior to teachers and to conforming pupils and had no interest in gaining qualifications. The lads counter-culture was racist and sexiest and they valued masculinity. This made them suitable to semi-skilled or manual work they wanted to do.
Willis followed the lads in their first jobs, he found similarities between shop-floor culture and counter school culture. There was the same racism and sexism and lack of respect to authority. Willis concluded that how they acted in school reflected the way they acted in their work.
David Blackledge and Barry Hunt criticised Willis in the following ways. They say that Willis sample is inadequate because there were only 12 and all male who weren't typical of the school students. Willis also ignored may other sub cultures within the school and they also suggest that Willis misinterpreted some evidence, they claim there is little evidence to suggest that lads develop the same attitudes as previous generations. For example Joey who was a non-conformist whereas his father was a conformist.
In conclusion Functionalists and Marxist have similar and also differential ideas towards education. Functionalists such as Durkhiem believe that schools operate on meritocratic principles. They believe that status is achieved on the basis of merit and that its fair and equal for all. However Bowles and Gintis reject that education can be meritocratic within a capitalist framework because the believe that class background is the most important factor influencing levels of attainment. Bowles and Gintis also claim those children of the wealthy and powerful have a higher chance of obtaining a better paid job. This rejects the Functionalist view by Parson that everyone has equal chances and this is disguised through the myth of meritocracy.
Both groups state that education has different purposes. The Functionalists prospective state that schools transmits society's norms and values. Bowles and Gintis Marxist view states that education's mayor role as the reproduction of labour power. They agree that education transmits norms and values but of the workplace and through the hidden curriculum.
I agree and disagree with both views. I agree that a school transmits societies norms and values but I also believe that family and friends also help. I also reject the Functionalists view that school is meritocratic because not everyone has an equal chance and not everyone will achieve the same even if they have the same ability. Children of the ruling class have greater chances.