In theory, the concept of allocating children to what was seen as their ‘best’ place to learn and achieve based on their ability, whether it be a grammar school, technical college or secondary modern seemed like the perfect system to aid in the development of individual potential. Unfortunately, there were many flaws in the tripartite structure, such as, the disproportionate selection of middle class children to grammar schools & working class to secondary moderns. Some may say, the thought that the future education and lives of pupils being decided by one (culturally biased) exam at the age of 11 was unfair and too deterministic of students, therefore the progress of children would be somewhat hindered.
Later down the line as the dissatisfaction of the tripartite system increased, education went through a further transformation in 1965. All L.E.A’s were to become comprehensive as instructed by the government and all children to be taught under one roof. Streaming from the previous structure was to be converted into Mixed ability teaching, the state wanted all pupils to achieve their maximum potential through the process guided discovery, this was known as progressive learning.
Talcot Parsons an American sociologist outlined what has become the accepted functionalist view of education. He argued firmly that ‘within the family, the child is judged & treated largely in terms of particularistic standards and values’. Whereas in the wider society we are treated in terms of universalistic principles which are applied to all members regardless. Further on he stated the child’s status is ascribed in the family though in advanced industrial society, status is largely achieved.
Parsons felt that the school represents society in miniature and for that reason education helps develop & prepare young people for the huge transition into adult life, moving away from particularistic values and into universalistic as modern society is increasingly based on achievement rather than ascription. He sees the education system as an imperative apparatus in the allocating of individuals for their future role in society. The school is therefore seen as a major mechanism for role allocation. Davis and Moore further examined the relation between education and social stratification. In accordance to their study education act as a filtering device, ensuring the correct person acquires the appropriate job for their ability. Nevertheless this is not entirely true as the link concerning academic achievement & occupational reward is not particular close. Even more so, the connection with income and educational attainment is weakly linked for example; the significant number of unemployed students.
Another conflicting perspective of the role of education comes from Bowles and Gintus. They consider that education is subservient to the needs of those who control the workforce(the owners of the means of production). They claim that capitalism needs a hard working, uncritical, passive and obedient workforce in order to succeed. Education helps to achieve this largely through the hidden curriculum. Ivan Illich, a liberal thinker and educationalist identified education as a repressive institution which smothers imaginations & creativity, inducing conformity & muffles students into accepting the interests of the powerful.
According to Bowles and Gintus, by making education seem fair and just, class consciousness does not develop & the stability of society is not threatened, in other words education legitimises inequality indirectly. The belief that we all compete on a equal terms is ultimately an illusion, some have far greater opportunities than others, particularly the powerful and wealthy & it is this that education system disguises with the myth of meritocracy. Many who are failed blamed themselves, and not the system which has condemned them to failure.
As we have seen there are many hypothesis and suggestions to the role of education and the part it plays or should play in our society. As a result of this, the education system has endured many modifications to ‘improve’ in equality and meritocracy (if that really is its sole intention). Important and outstanding questions must be answered to, such as why particular class based patterns within educational achievement seem to continue even though the many major changes & why meritocracy has not come any closer to being a reality despite this. All the theories seem to have their pros and cons but my evaluation is that surely an institution as enormous as this has more functions and perhaps there is no single outstanding role of education and really, there are several, essential roles that it plays and until progressive steps & changes are made the cycle will continue.
