Talcott Parson, a sociologist goes on to further research and justify this role allocation believing young people re given appropriate roles in the wider society, depending on their talents and abilities. Schools are simply there to offer all pupils an equal chance of success, reflecting the values of the wider society. He saw the education system as the main agency of secondary education, building on the primary education provided by the family. This suggests that schools act as a bridge between family and the wider society.
Marxists, however have opposing views because in Marx’s view the ruling class use education to transmit its ideology to the rest of the population, as it is a far more effective means of domination. This ideology persuades the working class to accept its position, enabling the ruling class to maintain its power and privilege to perpetuate the class structure.
In schooling in Capitalist America (1976) Bowles and Gintis claim that there is a close correspondence between the social relationships in the classroom and those in the workplace. This is known as the correspondence theory, whereby new generations of workers are appropriately schooled to accept their roles in capitalist society. Teachers give orders and pupils are expected to obey, having little control over their work. As a result this corresponds to their later experience of lack of control in the workplace. Young people get little direct satisfaction from their education, motivated mainly by external rewards such as qualifications. This, coincidentally is reflected in the workplace, as the work islet provides little satisfaction, being solely motivated by external rewards such as pay.
Learning to labour was a key study carried out by Marxists, including Bowles and Ginits, and Willis to provide evidence for the correspondence theory. They viewed the role of education as the belief that capitalism is unjust and oppressive and that it explains the workforce because schools reward hard work, conformity and obedience. Unfortunately students who learn to live with what they see as the boredom of school are prepared for the monotony of low-skilled jobs.
When analysing these two main approaches to the sociological study of the role education plays in society, although they oppose each other because functionalists emphasise the ways in which education in school contributes to the smooth running of society through teaching shared values and allocating people to appropriate occupational roles. Whereas, on the other hand, Marxists see the same process as the installing of the ideology for most of those from working-class backgrounds. There are, however, similarities between them as they both agree that school is prepaying you for the workplace, both agreeing that conformity and obedience is encouraged in the school system. However, functionalists believe there is equal opportunity, as opposed to Marxists who don’t.
The two theories also agree that the school does not just teach the official curriculum. There is a hidden curriculum, which socialise you, but one says its there to make you feel bonded to society and the other believes it’s to exploit people. Therefore the question continues to remain, is society meritocratic or do some start with an advantage based on their social background?
