The Role and Purpose of Education

The sociology of education asks fundamental questions: Why does education exist? Whose interests does it serve? Is it a force for social cohesion and meritocracy, or a mechanism of social reproduction and inequality? The AQA specification requires you to understand and evaluate functionalist, Marxist, New Right, and postmodernist perspectives on the role and purpose of education. Each offers a different answer to these questions, and each has distinctive strengths and weaknesses.

Key Definition: Education refers to the formal process of teaching and learning that takes place in institutions such as schools, colleges, and universities, as well as informal learning within the family and wider society.

Functionalist Views of Education

Functionalism is a consensus theory that sees society as a system of interconnected parts, each performing a function that contributes to the stability and smooth running of the whole. Education, from this perspective, is a vital institution that performs several essential functions for both individuals and society.

Durkheim: Social Solidarity and Specialist Skills

Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) identified two main functions of education:

Creating social solidarity: Education transmits society's shared culture, norms, and values from one generation to the next. This creates a sense of belonging and commitment to the wider social group. Durkheim argued that without shared values, social life would be impossible because each individual would pursue their own selfish desires. Schools act as a "society in miniature," preparing children for life in the wider world by teaching them to cooperate with people who are neither family nor friends. Subjects such as history and citizenship help pupils feel part of a shared heritage and community.
Teaching specialist skills: In advanced industrial societies, production requires a complex division of labour. Education equips individuals with the specialist knowledge and skills needed to play their part in the social division of labour. For example, science and technology education provides the skilled workforce that a modern economy demands.

Key Definition: Social solidarity is the feeling of belonging to a community and sharing its values, norms, and beliefs. For Durkheim, education is the primary institution responsible for creating this in modern societies.

Parsons: Meritocracy and the Bridge Between Family and Society

Talcott Parsons (1961) developed Durkheim's ideas further. He saw the school as the focal socialising agency in modern society, acting as a bridge between the family and wider society. Within the family, a child is judged by particularistic standards — they are treated as special and their status is ascribed (given at birth). In contrast, wider society judges individuals by universalistic standards — the same rules apply to everyone and status is achieved through effort and ability.

School prepares children for this transition by treating every pupil according to the same rules and evaluating them all against the same objective criteria (examinations, grades). This instils two key values:

The value of achievement: Pupils learn that rewards come from effort and ability, not from who they are or who they know.
The value of equal opportunity: Everyone is given the same chance, and those who work hardest and are most talented rise to the top.

Parsons therefore saw education as a meritocratic institution. It sifts and sorts people according to their ability and effort, legitimately allocating them to appropriate roles in the social division of labour.

Key Definition: Meritocracy is a system in which rewards and positions are allocated on the basis of individual talent and effort, rather than on inherited wealth, social background, or other ascribed characteristics.

Davis and Moore: Role Allocation

Davis and Moore (1945) argued that social inequality is both inevitable and functional. Not all roles in society are equally important, and not everyone is equally talented. Education performs the function of role allocation — it acts as a filtering device, sifting and sorting individuals according to their abilities and channelling them into the roles that best match their talents.

The most important roles in society (e.g., surgeons, engineers) carry the highest rewards because they require the most talent and the longest training. Education identifies the most able individuals through examinations and qualifications and ensures that the most functionally important positions are filled by the most qualified people.

Functionalist Theorist	Key Concept	Core Argument
Durkheim	Social solidarity / Specialist skills	Education transmits shared values and provides the skilled workforce society needs
Parsons	Meritocracy / Bridge	School bridges family and society by applying universalistic standards and rewarding achievement
Davis & Moore	Role allocation	Education sifts and sorts individuals into roles suited to their ability

Evaluation of Functionalism

Strengths:

Highlights the positive functions of education and its role in social cohesion.
Recognises the relationship between education and economic needs.
Education does transmit shared values (e.g., through the National Curriculum).

Limitations:

Marxists argue functionalism ignores the way education reproduces class inequality. The values transmitted are not shared values but the values of the ruling class.
Interactionists argue functionalism is too deterministic — it ignores the way pupils can reject the values schools try to impose.
Feminists argue functionalism ignores gender inequalities in education.
The claim that education is meritocratic is challenged by evidence of class, gender, and ethnic inequalities in achievement.
Tumin (1953) criticised Davis and Moore, arguing that role allocation is not based on ability but on social class background.

Marxist Views of Education

Marxism is a conflict theory that sees education as serving the interests of the capitalist ruling class (the bourgeoisie), not the interests of society as a whole. Education reproduces class inequality and legitimates it by producing ideologies that disguise its true nature.

Althusser: The Ideological State Apparatus

Louis Althusser (1971) argued that the state maintains the power of the capitalist class through two mechanisms:

The Repressive State Apparatus (RSA): Institutions like the police, courts, and army that maintain control through force or the threat of force.
The Ideological State Apparatus (ISA): Institutions like education, the media, and religion that maintain control through ideology — by shaping people's ideas, values, and beliefs.

Education is the most important ISA because it has a captive audience of young people for years during their most formative period. It performs two functions:

Reproduction: Education reproduces class inequality by failing working-class pupils, ensuring they end up in working-class jobs.
Legitimation: Education legitimates class inequality by producing ideologies that justify it. Pupils learn to accept that inequality is fair because those at the top have earned their position through merit. In reality, Althusser argues, social class, not ability, determines educational success.

Bowles and Gintis: The Correspondence Principle and the Hidden Curriculum

Bowles and Gintis (1976), in their study Schooling in Capitalist America, argued that capitalist education is not meritocratic. Analysing data from 237 New York high school students, they found that academic success was related not to measured IQ but to personality traits such as obedience, discipline, and dependability. The most successful students were those most willing to conform. This finding contradicts the functionalist claim that education rewards talent.

Bowles and Gintis developed the concept of the correspondence principle: there is a close correspondence (similarity) between the social relationships of production in the workplace and the social relationships of education. In other words, school mirrors work:

School	Work
Hierarchy of authority (headteacher > teachers > pupils)	Hierarchy of authority (managers > supervisors > workers)
Extrinsic motivation (grades, qualifications)	Extrinsic motivation (wages)
Fragmentation of knowledge into subjects	Fragmentation of work into repetitive tasks
Competition between pupils	Competition between workers
Lack of control over curriculum	Lack of control over production

This correspondence is achieved through the hidden curriculum — the lessons learned through the everyday experience of attending school, rather than through the formal content of lessons. Pupils learn to accept hierarchy, to be motivated by external rewards, to compete against each other, and to accept boredom and routine — all qualities needed in the future workforce.

Key Definition: The hidden curriculum refers to the norms, values, and behaviours that pupils learn informally through the experience of schooling, rather than through the explicit content of lessons. For Marxists, it teaches conformity and acceptance of capitalism.

Evaluation of Marxism

Strengths:

Evidence of class inequality in educational achievement supports the Marxist argument that education is not meritocratic.
The correspondence principle highlights real similarities between school and work.
Explains why the education system has consistently failed to eliminate class-based achievement gaps despite decades of reform.

Limitations:

Bowles and Gintis take a deterministic view — they see pupils as passive victims of the hidden curriculum. Willis (1977) showed that working-class boys ("the lads") actively resisted school authority, although their resistance ironically still led them into working-class jobs.
Postmodernists argue that the correspondence principle is too simplistic for contemporary society, where work is increasingly flexible and diverse.
The education system does benefit some working-class pupils — social mobility does occur, even if it is limited.
Feminists argue Marxism focuses too narrowly on class, ignoring gender and ethnicity.

New Right Views of Education

The New Right is a conservative political perspective that emerged in the 1980s. Like functionalists, the New Right believe that education should be meritocratic and should socialise pupils into shared values. However, they argue that the state-run education system has failed to achieve these goals because it is a state monopoly and is therefore inefficient, wasteful, and unresponsive to the needs of its consumers (parents and employers).

Chubb and Moe: Marketisation

Chubb and Moe (1990) argued that the American state education system had failed for two reasons:

It had failed to create equality of opportunity — disadvantaged groups continued to be let down by state schools.
It was not responsive to the needs of pupils, parents, or employers because there was no competition to drive improvement.

Their solution was marketisation — introducing market forces (competition, choice, and consumer sovereignty) into education. They proposed a voucher system in which each family would receive a voucher to spend at the school of their choice. Schools would then have to compete for pupils (and the funding they bring), driving up standards. Poorly performing schools would lose pupils and eventually close, while successful schools would expand.

Evaluation of the New Right

Strengths:

Has been highly influential on education policy — the 1988 Education Reform Act, academies, and free schools all reflect New Right ideas.
Competition between schools has, in some cases, driven improvement.

Limitations:

Marxists argue marketisation increases inequality because middle-class parents are better able to exploit the system (e.g., through "selection by mortgage").
Ball (1994) found that marketisation created a two-tier system: popular, oversubscribed schools in affluent areas and underperforming schools in deprived areas.
Gewirtz (1995) identified three types of parental chooser: privileged-skilled, semi-skilled, and disconnected. Middle-class parents are more likely to be "privileged-skilled choosers" with the cultural capital to navigate the system.

Postmodernist Views of Education

Postmodernists argue that both functionalist and Marxist theories of education are metanarratives — grand theories that claim to explain the whole of society but are no longer valid in the diverse, fragmented, postmodern world.

Postmodernists such as Usher and Edwards (1994) argue that education is linked to the modernist project of progress through reason and science. In postmodern society, there is no single truth or way of knowing. Education should therefore be diverse and flexible, celebrating difference rather than imposing a single national identity or set of values.

However, postmodernist theory is itself criticised for being vague and for underestimating the continuing reality of class, gender, and ethnic inequalities in education. If education is merely about celebrating diversity, it may ignore the structural barriers that prevent some groups from achieving.

Summary: Comparing Perspectives

Perspective	View of Education	Key Theorists	Core Criticism
Functionalism	Positive — promotes solidarity, meritocracy, role allocation	Durkheim, Parsons, Davis & Moore	Ignores inequality; assumes consensus
Marxism	Negative — reproduces and legitimates class inequality	Althusser, Bowles & Gintis	Deterministic; ignores resistance and social mobility
New Right	Critical of state education — favours marketisation	Chubb & Moe	Marketisation increases inequality
Postmodernism	Education reflects outdated modernist values	Usher & Edwards	Vague; ignores structural inequality

Exam Tip: A 30-mark essay on the role of education will require you to compare perspectives. Use the contrasts between functionalism and Marxism as the backbone of your answer, and bring in the New Right and postmodernism for extra marks. Always include specific studies and evaluation points — examiners reward depth and the ability to weigh up competing arguments.