However, Parsons (American sociologist) focused more on the generally accepted functionalists viewpoints of education and its effects on the family. He argues that the school acts as a bridge between families and their societies, preparing children for their roles in adult lives. He argues that school prepares the child for the change of being judged in terms of particularistic standards to universalistic standards, ie. the individual (particular) view given by their parents is later replaced with a more general view (universal) in which the child is seen by others as a 'member' of society and not so much as an individual. Therefore it shows universalistic standards in which all pupils achieve their status and understanding of a more complex lifestyle. He agrees with Durkheim in the concept that school represents society in miniature preparing children for their later roles in the social system. The school is seen as the major mechanism for role allocation, ie. testing and evaluating students progress match their talents, skills and jobs for which they are best suited.
Davis and Moore argue that the education system is more directly linked with the system of social stratification - a way of ensuring that the most talented, able members of society are allocated to their most suited, functional positions in society.They believe that stratification is universally necessary due to the requirements of any society to motivate individual to fill important social positions and that education is an important part of this process by 'proving one's ground for ability to be placed into the relevant status according to their capacity'. The education sorts individuals into categories in terms of talents and abilities in order to reward the appropriate people with high qualifications allowing easy access to those occupations which serve great importance and many functions in society.
So, functionalists have focused on two general questions: 'What are the functions of education for society as a whole?' and also 'What are the functional relationships between education and the other parts of the social system?' These questions then lead onto their assessment of contribution of education to social solidarity and relationship between education and the economic system contributing to society as a whole. These viewpoints differ in many ways from those of the liberal or marxist viewpoints.
Liberal views are more generally a view held by many educationalists and are largely focused on the contribution of education on the individual rather than the contribution to society. They concentrate on the effects and benefits of the influence of education on individuals, therefore indirectly the improvement of society. Functionalist and liberal views accept that there are limitations to the existing education system but do go into depth of ways that it can be altered and improved.
However marxists views have a conflict view of society more generally based on the working class and the middle class. Conflicts believe that significant improvements can be made alongside wider social changes. They concentrate on groups within societies sharing fundamentally different interests wherein education is organized in contemporary societies, benefitting some more than others. Their theories emphasized the role of conflict in human societies and were mainly influenced by marxism. Bowles and Gintis argue that the major role of education in capitalist societies is the reproduction of labour power whereas Henry Giroux and Paul Willis recognize the existence of conflict within the education system and reject the view that there is any simple, direct relationship between the economy and the way the education system operates. However willis, like Bowles & Gintis focuses on the way that the education system shapes the future workforce but denies that education is a successful way of bringing about socialization.
Functionalist perspectives on education are often considered as having a conservative bias and the functions outlined are similar to those of the Government departments.They are accused of accepting the establishment view, therefore suppoting it. Parsons and Durkheim have been criticised for assuming that the norms and values transmitted by the education system are those of society as a whole rather than those of a ruling class, etc. Durkheim and Hargreaves criticize education based upon competitive grounds however other functionalists find it essential to modern education.
However the work of Bowles and Gintis has been generally criticized by many for having exaggerated the correspondance between work and education failing to provide adequate evidence to prove their case. Hargreaves criticizes Giroux for failing to indicate under what circumstances education can develop independantly.Basically Giroux' work has been said to be too unspecific.
I agree with Durkheims' theory of school being a 'miniature society' and also in the fact that schools can provide children with the basic necessities that families are unable to in terms of developing interaction and cooperation with new people outside the kinship/peer group in order to create early socialization within the child. I believe there is a sense of conflict within the education system although I think that the conflict perspective (Giroux) is more practical - that there is no simple alternative in terms of straight-forward improvements. I disagree with Davis & Moores' theory that the most talented students are likely to achieve more. This is a generally unspecific presumption. In terms of qualifications, this is perhaps true but in terms of achievements throughout life, there is no way of proving as a persons family background could also have a major contribution to their future and successes.
Beth Slater
