‘’children are given a set of ideas which they use to understand the world. They are not allowed to examine and discuss these ideas, just accept and believe them’’(cited in Sociology in perspective)
If this is true, individuals are being exploited and easily controlled conforming to the position given to them in society.
Durkehim agrees with the idea that shared norms and values create social solidarity. This involves a commitment to society, a sense of belonging and a feeling that the social unit is more important to the individual, however, from an interactionalist point of view, how can so many different individuals all have the same type of norms and values, especially when according to functionalism, these are a continuation of norms and values created from home life. If this was correct, every family would have the same norms and values which every school would then continue. However, as there is a diverse range of cultures, life experiences and beliefs, every would family would not operate the same norms and values. Parsons claims that school establishes universalistic standards in terms of which pupils achieve their status. Behaviour and achievement can be measured so that status is achieved on the basis of merit. Every pupil can be equally measured regardless of sex, race, religion etc. This meritocratic principle means that the education of students is based on achievement rather than ascription.
Private and grammar schools could be argued to have an advantage than to state schools. If parents can pay for a school with fewer pupils in classes and the opportunity for a wider variety of subjects, this must be considered better than state schools. However, it could be argued that many higher and richer classes do not want private education for their children as they want them to achieve their status and not inherit it. Also, if a child is attending private school, it does not necessarily mean that the child will be of better conduct. Also, a child maybe placed into the wrong set for a subject, if this happens their intelligence may not be able to flourish, or, if a child is put into a higher set which is too advanced for them, they may feel negative as they struggle with the work, or perhaps embarrassed to ask for help if all the other children understand. On the other hand, it may create a positive influence and encourage the individual to work harder and challenge the fellow students. This is the functionalist idea of a self fulfilling prophecy, so that a student could start to believe and make impossible situations possible.
According to functionalism, our status is achieved through exams. Parsons argues that everyone is treated the same way and everyone has the same chance to succeed, therefore those that achieve most in school do so due to their effort and ability and will benefit the society as a whole and will fill the best jobs available.
However, Marxist Bowles and Gintis found that students that were creative and independent achieved lower grades which meant these qualities being overlooked. Students who were punctual and dependable would become teachers’ favourites just because the creative and independent students did not like the way in which there education and work is organised.
Davis and Moore (1945) believe that social stratification ensures the most talented members of society are allocated to the best jobs. In theory, this means that these are jobs people compete for and that the most talented people will be selected. In opposition to this, the relationship between academic talent and occupational background is not very close e.g. income and educational attainment. Everyday, we rely on the emergency services such as ambulance, police, fire etc. These occupations save lives everyday but don’t get paid the highest salary, whereas, footballers kicking a football on a field get paid far greater; therefore, according to Davis and Moore, this would be a more important job than saving lives.
According to the functionalist theory, education today is very fair and provides equal opportunities for everyone. We are told that education is based on meritocratic principles; this could be an ideology to legitimise inequalities in society that education helps to reproduce, however, Marxists would argue that education is not a meritocracy because the higher class or the wealthier people can afford private tutors with one to one attention, whereas if a family cannot afford this, the people with private tutors will have better education.
Role allocation is described as finding the appropriate person and their talents for the jobs to best suit them, however, a person may be misjudged or have not had the best chance at education but when given a good chance, may be able to do a better job. From an Interactionalist's point of view, the person may have had personal problems so could have achieved better in exams. Functionalists judge things in a very general and wide scale way, and therefore, things found by the interactionalist approach would never be known e.g. the effect a teacher has on pupils.
Not every individual can be examined and a bad exam result could not be excused as a pupil ‘’having a bad day’’(cited at 09.09.2004)
According to the functionalist theory, the norms and values being transmitted may be those of the elite and ruling class, and much of the education is based on exams and that status is achieved, not ascribed. Some sociologists may not agree with this, and may find weaknesses in the functionalist theory. However, the functionalist theory takes into consideration, themes which other theories do not. E.g. Some people would like jobs which are considered of lower status, and not everyone can be a high achiever. According to the Marxist theory, everyone should be equal, which is impossible. ‘’Some will be better than others’’ (cited in sociology in perspectives) will be recognised by Functionalism. The fact that education does fulfil its role is an indication that theories of functionalism, such as role allocation must be a contributing factor.
