Outline and assess Functionalist explanations of the role of the education system.

        Functionalist Parsons, who later developed the work of Durkheim, believes that the education system is an institution which provides vital secondary socialisation for children, - allowing them to experience society “beyond the family”, in that to him, the education system is a “microcosm of society”.  Parsons believes that the education system is meritocratic, with hard work rewarded by a hierarchical system of qualifications; students are motivated to work in order to seek the rewards of doing well. He suggests that children, learn through the education system, that rewards come through hard work and therefore are encouraged to work hard throughout their time in the education system and later life, - allowing preparation for later adult life. Contrastingly however, Marxists would dispute this with Marx putting forward the notion that the education system is an “apparatus of state ideological control” and one which reproduces existing class inequalities. For Marxists, the education system is not one which is based upon the principles of equal opportunities, but one which serves to promote the myth of meritocracy, socialising children to accept in equality as endemic and hence keeping class position fixed. Support for Marxists and therefore a statistic which is against the view is that at secondary level, class is a very influential factor over results, with a national 40% divide in performance between the lower and middle class. As a result, it could very much be argued that the education system does not provide social mobility through meritocracy but rather acts as a form of state control, with middle class and upper class (the bourgeoisie) using the education system to maintain dominance. Whilst, we do know that the state does place key emphasis on using the education system as an institution which provides social mobility, with Tony Blair claiming that his priorities were “education, education, education”, in addition to the introduction of the “Education Maintenance Allowance” scheme and the new “pupil premium” initiative. It could therefore be argued that the functionalist perspective is correct, in that the education system is a system based upon a certain degree of meritocracy. But, the true degree that this principle translates in reality is contestable, with Functionalism not being able to provide answers for differences in class performance, whilst Marxism can.

        Role allocation is another function of education put forward by Functionalists Davis and Moore. Davis and Moore put forward the notion that the education system serves society as a role allocator. Davis and Moore suggest that the education system meets the economic needs of society by catering for the highly specialised job market; it provides benefits for members of society as well as society as a whole. Working together with the principle of meritocracy, functionalists see the education system as an institution which provides the members of society with the benefit of working hard to achieve in life. Davis and Moore see the existence of a hierarchical qualification system as positive, - providing employers with the ability to fill highly specialised occupations with suitable candidates, hence forth displaying the education system as related to positive economic stability. It is true to say that the education system does act as a selector, and that there is a hierarchical design of qualifications within the education system, in addition to series of constant assessment throughout the education system. It can be observed that UCAS acts as a selector when allocating university places and the diversity in degree schemes reflects the diversity in the employment arena. Nevertheless, the perspective seems to ignore the degree of choice of individuals, and could be interpreted as being overly deterministic. Willis’ study of males within education showed how pupils can rebel against the education system and create “anti school subcultures” which work to the dysfunction of the education system, rather than the smooth running of society. Marxists Bowles and Gintis dispute that the existence of the hierarchy within society is beneficial to members of society, and society as a whole. Perhaps seen as a polar opposite to functionalism, Marxism suggests that society is based upon inequality, which is negative for society; with inequality arising and being reinforced within the education system. Bowles and Ginitis reject the functionalist view of role allocation, suggesting that the traits of hardworking pupils are not positive, as they are often obedient, conforming and dependable. As a result, Bowles and Ginitis agree that role allocation is a function of the education system, but rather that it is a dysfunction of the system, rather than a positive which meets the economic needs of society. Bowles and Gintis argue that the education system does not contribute to economic wellbeing, but inequality in society, - disadvantaging society, rather than benefiting it as functionalists would suggest. In defence of Functionalism, the Marxist outlook overlooks the fact that the study of sociology itself opens the eyes of many students to inequality within society, but these students want a position within the labour force because of the benefits it brings.

        In conclusion, it is clear that Functionalists tend to paint a positive picture of the education system, suggesting that it is an institution which promotes social cohesion, social mobility and economic stability. Through its role as an agent of secondary socialisation, the introduction of the national curriculum and the design of the qualification system, functionalists argue that the education system contributes to the positive function of society and to the benefits of its students. However, critics, mainly from the Marxist perspective find that class inequality is perhaps one of the biggest factors that functionalism ignores. Although, it is often the case that governments (at least in principle) do attempt to champion the education system as an institution of social mobility, with policy which aims to reflect and increase this. Furthermore, support for Functionalism also comes from the overwhelming statistics that countries with more graduates tend to have more highly advanced economies,- support the work of Davis and Moore. In all, Functionalism is a theory which tends to lend itself to looking at the positives of the education system, documenting the benefits of it- which all are founded upon both research and also operating realities in many cases.