You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
The sociology of education begins with a deceptively simple question: why does education exist, and whose interests does it serve? For some sociologists, education is the central institution holding modern society together — transmitting shared values, equipping individuals with skills, and fairly allocating people to the roles that suit their talents. For others, it is a sophisticated mechanism of social reproduction that disguises ruling-class power behind a comforting myth of fairness. The same school assembly, the same examination hall, and the same league table can be read as evidence of social cohesion or of social control, depending on the theoretical lens you apply. This lesson examines the four perspectives the AQA specification requires — functionalism, Marxism, the New Right, and postmodernism — and treats the disagreements between them as the engine of evaluation that examiners reward. A high-level answer never simply describes a perspective; it sets each one against its rivals and weighs the evidence.
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 the informal learning that occurs within the family and wider society. Sociologists distinguish the manifest functions of education (its stated, intended purposes — e.g. teaching literacy) from its latent functions (its hidden, unintended consequences — e.g. acting as a "marriage market", providing childcare, or keeping young people out of the labour market and so reducing youth unemployment).
Spec Mapping: This lesson maps to AQA A-Level Sociology (7192), Paper 1, Section A: Education — specifically the requirement to understand and evaluate the role and function of the education system, including its relationship to the economy and to class structure. It provides the theoretical foundation (functionalism, Marxism, New Right, postmodernism) that you apply to every other Education sub-topic, and it is examined through both 10-mark "applying material from the Item, analyse" questions and 30-mark "applying material from the Item and your knowledge, evaluate" essays.
Synoptic Links: The perspectives here are not unique to education — they run through the whole specification. Functionalism (Durkheim, Parsons) reappears in your study of the family (the family meeting society's functional prerequisites) and crime and deviance (Merton's strain theory, which adapts Durkheim's anomie). Marxism (Althusser, Bowles & Gintis) links to beliefs in society (ideology and false consciousness as social control), the family (the family reproducing labour power), and stratification (the reproduction of class). The New Right connects to debates about the family (Murray on the underclass) and to social policy more broadly. Methods in Context is engaged whenever we ask how sociologists gathered their evidence — Bowles and Gintis used survey data, Willis used participant observation and unstructured interviews, and each method carries its own validity, reliability, and representativeness issues that you can use as evaluation.
Functionalism is a consensus theory that sees society as a system of interconnected parts (the organic analogy — society as a living body whose institutions are like organs), each performing a function that contributes to the stability and smooth running of the whole. Education, from this perspective, is a vital organ of the social body. It performs essential functions for both the individual and the wider system, and the existence of mass education in every developed society is taken as evidence that it must be meeting genuine social needs. Functionalists assume society rests on value consensus — a broad agreement about norms and values — and that the chief job of education is to pass that consensus on.
Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), the founding father of functionalist sociology, identified two main functions of education in works such as Moral Education (1925):
Creating social solidarity. Education transmits society's shared culture — its norms, values, and collective beliefs — from one generation to the next. This creates a sense of belonging to something larger than oneself. Durkheim argued that without shared values, social life would be impossible because each individual would simply pursue their own selfish desires, producing a state of anomie (normlessness). 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 kin nor friends. Subjects such as history and citizenship help pupils feel part of a shared national heritage; the school assembly and the daily routine of obedience to impersonal rules instil commitment to the wider social group beyond the family.
Teaching specialist skills. In advanced industrial societies, production rests on a complex division of labour in which goods are produced through the cooperation of many specialists, each contributing a part. Education equips individuals with the specialist knowledge and skills needed to play their part in this division of labour, and — just as importantly — teaches them to value the interdependence on which it relies. For Durkheim, the school is the only institution capable of teaching both the specialist skills and the cooperative discipline that modern, interdependent production requires.
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 manufacturing this solidarity in complex modern societies where the older bonds of kinship and locality have weakened.
Evaluation of Durkheim (AO3). Durkheim writes as though the values transmitted by education are genuinely shared by everyone in society. Marxists counter that they are the values of the ruling class, presented as if they were universal. Postmodernists argue that in a culturally diverse, fragmented society there is no single shared culture for schools to transmit — the very idea of a single "national identity" is contested and may itself be a tool of control. Durkheim's account is also dated: developed for the early industrial economy, it arguably underestimates the conflict, competition, and selection that pervade modern schooling, and it ignores the way schools can fail to integrate some groups, leaving them marginalised rather than included.
Talcott Parsons (1961) developed Durkheim's ideas. He saw the school as the focal socialising agency in modern society, acting as a bridge between the family and wider society. The two institutions operate on opposite principles. Within the family, a child is judged by particularistic standards — rules that apply only to that particular child — and their status is ascribed (fixed at birth: a son is always "the son", loved unconditionally). In contrast, wider society judges individuals by universalistic standards — the same impersonal rules apply to everyone — and status is achieved through effort and ability.
School prepares children for this jarring transition by treating every pupil according to the same rules and evaluating them all against the same objective criteria (examinations, grades, marks out of ten). In doing so it instils two key values that society as a whole runs on:
Parsons therefore saw education as a meritocratic institution. It sifts and sorts people according to ability and effort, legitimately allocating them to appropriate roles in the social division of labour — and crucially, because everyone has had a "fair" chance, both winners and losers accept the outcome.
Key Definition: Meritocracy is a system in which rewards and positions are allocated on the basis of individual talent and effort (merit = ability + effort), rather than on inherited wealth, social background, or other ascribed characteristics. The term was popularised by Michael Young, who, ironically, coined it as a satirical warning about a future society rigidly stratified by IQ.
Davis and Moore (1945) argued that social stratification (inequality) is both inevitable and functionally necessary. 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 or sifting device, identifying individuals' abilities and channelling them into the roles that best match their talents.
The most functionally important roles (for example, surgeons or engineers) carry the highest rewards precisely because they demand scarce talent and long, sacrificial training. By offering greater rewards to those positions, society ensures that the most able people are motivated to compete for them and to undergo the necessary training, rather than settling for an easier life in a less demanding role. Education identifies the most able individuals through examinations and qualifications and guarantees that the most important positions are filled by the most qualified people. Inequality of reward, on this view, is the price society pays for getting the right people into the right jobs.
| Functionalist Theorist | Key Concept | Core Argument | Key Criticism |
|---|---|---|---|
| Durkheim | Social solidarity / specialist skills | Education transmits shared values and supplies the skilled, cooperative workforce a complex economy needs | Values are ruling-class, not shared (Marxism); no single culture in a diverse society (postmodernism) |
| Parsons | Meritocracy / the bridge | School bridges family and society by applying universalistic standards and rewarding achievement | Meritocracy is a myth — class, not merit, predicts success (Bowles & Gintis) |
| Davis & Moore | Role allocation | Education sifts and sorts individuals into the roles best suited to their ability, motivating talent with unequal rewards | Allocation reflects class background, not ability; argument is circular (Tumin) |
Strengths. Functionalism highlights genuine positive functions of education and its role in social cohesion; it recognises the real relationship between education and the needs of the economy; and education does transmit some shared values — through the National Curriculum, assemblies, citizenship education, and the celebration of national events. It also usefully draws attention to the link between schooling and the wider social system rather than treating the school in isolation.
Limitations. Marxists argue functionalism ignores the way education reproduces class inequality: the values transmitted are not consensus values but ruling-class ideology dressed up as common sense. Interactionists argue functionalism is too deterministic — it portrays pupils as passive recipients of socialisation and ignores the way they negotiate, reinterpret, or actively reject the values schools try to impose (a point Willis later proved). Feminists argue functionalism is gender-blind, ignoring the patriarchal messages of the hidden curriculum and the way schools have historically channelled girls and boys into different roles. The central claim that education is meritocratic is flatly contradicted by persistent class, gender, and ethnic gaps in achievement (the substance of later lessons). Finally, Tumin (1953) offered a devastating internal critique of Davis and Moore: their argument is circular (we "know" a role is important because it is highly rewarded, and it is highly rewarded because it is important — so the claim cannot be tested), it ignores the dysfunctions of stratification (talent wasted among the poor), and role allocation in practice reflects class background, not raw ability, since middle-class children inherit advantages that have nothing to do with merit.
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. For Marxists, the apparent consensus that functionalists celebrate is a form of false consciousness — a manufactured agreement that conceals exploitation and persuades the exploited to accept their position. Education reproduces class inequality across the generations and legitimates it by producing ideologies that disguise its true nature.
Louis Althusser (1971), a structuralist Marxist, argued that the capitalist state maintains ruling-class power through two distinct mechanisms:
Education is, for Althusser, the dominant ISA in modern capitalism precisely because it has a captive audience of young people for many years during their most formative period. It performs two functions: it reproduces class inequality (by failing working-class pupils generation after generation, channelling them back into working-class jobs) and it legitimates that inequality (by producing the ideology that those at the top earned their place through merit). The myth of meritocracy is therefore, for Althusser, the central ideological product of schooling: it persuades the working class that their failure is their own fault, so they blame themselves rather than the system.
The reproduction–legitimation process can be set out as a simple cycle, which a strong essay can use to organise the Marxist argument:
flowchart TD
A[Working-class pupils enter school] --> B[School fails most working-class pupils]
B --> C[They leave with few qualifications]
C --> D[They take low-paid, low-skill jobs]
D --> E[Their own children enter school disadvantaged]
E --> A
B --> F[Myth of meritocracy: 'you only have yourself to blame']
F --> G[Inequality is legitimated and accepted]
G --> D
Bowles and Gintis (1976), in Schooling in Capitalist America, argued bluntly that capitalist education is not meritocratic. Drawing on data relating to US high-school students, they found that academic success correlated less with measured IQ than with personality traits such as obedience, discipline, perseverance, and dependability. The students who got on best were not the most creative or independent but the most compliant — a finding that directly contradicts the functionalist claim that schools reward talent and that, for Bowles and Gintis, exposes the meritocracy as a smokescreen designed to justify inequality.
They developed the concept of the correspondence principle: there is a close correspondence (a mirror-like similarity) between the social relationships of school and the social relationships of the capitalist workplace. School prepares pupils for an exploited working life not by what it teaches but by how it is organised:
| School | Capitalist Workplace |
|---|---|
| Hierarchy of authority (headteacher > teachers > pupils) | Hierarchy of authority (managers > supervisors > workers) |
| Extrinsic motivation (grades, qualifications) | Extrinsic motivation (wages) |
| Fragmentation of knowledge into discrete subjects | Fragmentation of work into repetitive, deskilled tasks |
| Competition between pupils | Competition between workers |
| Lack of control over the curriculum | Alienation — lack of control over the product of one's labour |
This correspondence operates 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, to fragment their attention, and to tolerate boredom and routine — exactly the docile dispositions a capitalist workforce requires. Bowles and Gintis also identified the "myth of meritocracy" as legitimating inequality and described a "jug and mug" model of teaching, in which knowledge is poured from the active teacher into the passive pupil, mirroring the passivity demanded of workers.
Key Definition: The hidden curriculum refers to the norms, values, attitudes, and behaviours that pupils learn informally through the structure and routine of schooling, rather than through the explicit content of lessons. For functionalists it transmits beneficial shared values; for Marxists it manufactures obedient workers; for feminists it reproduces patriarchy.
The most important development of Marxist education theory came from Paul Willis (1977), whose ethnographic study Learning to Labour combined Marxism with an interactionist sensitivity to pupil agency. Through participant observation and group interviews with twelve working-class boys ("the lads") in a Midlands secondary school, Willis showed that the lads were not the passive dupes of Bowles and Gintis's account. They formed a counter-school culture that actively rejected the school's values: they valued "having a laff," mocked conformist pupils ("ear'oles") whom they saw as servile, and regarded manual work as masculine and superior to mental "cissy" work.
The paradox at the heart of Willis's study is that the lads' resistance to school nonetheless reproduced their class position. By rejecting qualifications and embracing the shop-floor culture of their fathers, they walked willingly into unskilled, low-paid manual labour — thereby doing capitalism's work of class reproduction for it, without coercion and even with a sense of triumph. Willis thus reconciled structure and agency: the lads were not brainwashed, yet their own creative choices led them straight into exploitation. This makes his account far less deterministic than Althusser's or Bowles and Gintis's, and explains why it remains a set-piece example in essays on both education and the structure–agency debate.
Strengths. The persistence of class inequality in achievement, despite decades of reform, supports the Marxist claim that education is not genuinely meritocratic. The correspondence principle highlights real structural similarities between school and work. Willis added theoretical sophistication by showing how pupils can resist and yet be reproduced, answering the charge of determinism.
Limitations. Bowles and Gintis take a deterministic view — they treat pupils as passive victims of the hidden curriculum, a view Willis directly refuted with evidence of active resistance. Postmodernists argue the correspondence principle is too simplistic for a post-industrial economy in which work is increasingly flexible, casualised, knowledge-based, and diverse rather than uniformly factory-like, so the "mirror" no longer fits. The education system does benefit some working-class pupils — limited social mobility undeniably occurs, which a strict reproduction model struggles to explain. Feminists argue that classical Marxism is class-reductionist, focusing so narrowly on class that it neglects gender and ethnicity. Finally, Willis's sample (twelve boys, one school) is tiny and unrepresentative, his findings are hard to generalise, and his sympathetic reading of the lads' rebellion arguably understates how self-destructive, racist, and sexist their counter-culture actually was.
The New Right is a conservative political perspective that rose to prominence in the 1980s under Thatcher and Reagan. It shares with functionalism a belief that education should be meritocratic and should socialise pupils into shared values. Its quarrel is not with these goals but with the state monopoly that, it argues, prevents schools from achieving them. State-run education, on this view, is inefficient, wasteful, and unresponsive because — like any monopoly insulated from competition — it has no incentive to improve and is run for the convenience of producers (teachers, bureaucrats) rather than consumers (parents, pupils, employers).
Chubb and Moe (1990), comparing the performance of state and private schools in the USA, argued that state education had failed for two reasons: it had not delivered equality of opportunity (disadvantaged groups were consistently let down), and it was unresponsive to its consumers because no competitive pressure forced it to improve. Their remedy was marketisation — introducing 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 compete for pupils and the funding they bring, driving up standards, while failing schools would lose pupils and close. The discipline of the market, they argued, would achieve what decades of state planning had not.
The New Right also stresses the importance of a strong, traditional, shared culture and national identity. Thinkers and commentators in this tradition argued that progressive, child-centred teaching had eroded standards and that schools should transmit a clear set of values — a view that fed directly into the introduction of the National Curriculum and rigorous national testing.
Strengths. New Right ideas have been enormously influential on real policy — the 1988 Education Reform Act, league tables, Ofsted, open enrolment, academies, and free schools all bear their imprint. In some cases competition and accountability have demonstrably shaken up complacent schools and raised standards.
Limitations. Marxists and many sociologists of education argue that marketisation increases inequality because middle-class parents are far better placed to exploit it (for example, through "selection by mortgage" — buying houses in the catchment of good schools). Gewirtz (1995) identified three types of parental chooser — privileged-skilled, semi-skilled, and disconnected — and showed that middle-class parents, as privileged-skilled choosers with abundant cultural capital, systematically win in the marketplace, while working-class parents are constrained by cost, transport, and lack of information. Ball (1994) found that marketisation produced a polarised, two-tier system: oversubscribed schools in affluent areas and a residual sector of under-subscribed schools in deprived areas. There is also a tension within New Right thinking, often noted by examiners: it simultaneously wants a free market in schools and a strong central state dictating a single National Curriculum and testing regime — an apparent contradiction between freedom and control.
Postmodernists argue that both functionalist and Marxist theories of education are metanarratives — grand, totalising "stories" that claim to explain the whole of society but that have lost credibility in a diverse, fragmented, media-saturated world. Usher and Edwards (1994) argue that the mass schooling system belongs to the modernist project of imposing order, progress, and a single set of values through reason and science — turning out standardised pupils as a factory turns out standardised products. In a postmodern society characterised by choice, difference, fluid identities, and the breakdown of fixed class cultures, education should instead be diverse, flexible, and customised, celebrating difference rather than processing everyone through an identical, conveyor-belt system.
Some postmodernists point to the growth of e-learning, lifelong learning, modular courses, and a diversifying provision (academies, free schools, online platforms) as evidence that the rigid modernist school is already breaking up into a plurality of forms. Evaluation (AO3): critics argue postmodernism is vague and difficult to test, that it underestimates the continuing reality of structured class, gender, and ethnic inequality, and that celebrating diversity can become an excuse for ignoring the very real material barriers that still prevent some groups from succeeding. Marxists in particular argue that beneath the surface diversity, the deep function of reproducing class inequality continues unchanged — the new academies and free schools may simply be old inequalities in fashionable new packaging.
| Perspective | View of Education | Key Theorists | Core Criticism |
|---|---|---|---|
| Functionalism | Positive — promotes solidarity, meritocracy, role allocation | Durkheim, Parsons, Davis & Moore | Ignores inequality; assumes a consensus that may not exist |
| Marxism | Negative — reproduces and legitimates class inequality | Althusser, Bowles & Gintis, Willis | Deterministic (except Willis); class-reductionist |
| New Right | Critical of the state monopoly — favours marketisation | Chubb & Moe | Marketisation increases inequality; internal contradiction |
| Postmodernism | Education reflects outdated modernist values | Usher & Edwards | Vague; ignores enduring structural inequality |
Item A Functionalist sociologists argue that the education system performs vital functions for society as a whole. They claim that schools transmit shared values and act as a bridge between the family and the wider world. However, other sociologists argue that the values transmitted by schools are not shared by everyone but instead serve the interests of powerful groups.
Applying material from Item A, analyse two functions that the education system may perform for society. (10 marks)
AO breakdown: AO1 ~4 marks — accurate knowledge of two functionalist functions; AO2 ~3 marks — explicit use of the Item ("transmit shared values"; "bridge between the family and the wider world"); AO3 ~3 marks — developing each function in a logical analytical chain and showing how it benefits society.
Item B Functionalists see education as a meritocratic institution that benefits both individuals and society by allocating people to roles on the basis of their ability and effort. They argue that this process is fair because everyone is judged by the same universalistic standards. In contrast, Marxists argue that the education system reproduces and legitimates class inequality, serving the interests of the capitalist ruling class rather than society as a whole.
Applying material from Item B and your knowledge, evaluate the view that the main function of education is to serve the needs of the economy. (30 marks)
AO breakdown: AO1 ~10 marks (functionalist and Marxist accounts of education and the economy, with named studies); AO2 ~10 marks (sustained use of Item B — meritocracy, universalistic standards, reproduction, legitimation); AO3 ~10 marks (evaluation: functionalism vs Marxism, the New Right, postmodernism, and a reasoned conclusion).
Mid-band response (extract). "Functionalists like Durkheim say education teaches us specialist skills for the economy and creates social solidarity. Parsons said school is a bridge between the family and society and that it is meritocratic. Davis and Moore said education sorts people into the right jobs through role allocation, so the cleverest people get the most important jobs and the highest pay. This serves the economy because it gives businesses the skilled workers they need. However, Marxists like Bowles and Gintis disagree and say school is not really meritocratic but trains workers to obey." This contains accurate AO1 and identifies the functionalist–Marxist contrast, but the points are listed rather than analysed, the Item is barely used, and the evaluation is asserted rather than developed into an argument.
Stronger response (extract). "For functionalists, education clearly does serve the economy. Durkheim argued that an advanced division of labour requires the school to teach specialist skills, while Davis and Moore's concept of role allocation explains how examinations sift the most able into the most functionally important roles, motivating them with higher rewards. As Item B notes, this is presented as fair because pupils are judged by 'universalistic standards.' However, this functionalist picture can be challenged. Bowles and Gintis argue the link to the economy is real but exploitative: through the correspondence principle, the hidden curriculum produces obedient workers rather than fairly allocating talent, since success correlates with compliance, not IQ. The 'reproduction and legitimation' Item B describes therefore replaces 'meritocracy' as the real economic function." Here the functions are developed into chains, the Item is woven in, and evaluation is integrated rather than bolted on at the end.
Top-band response (extract). "The claim that education's main function is to serve the economy is shared, paradoxically, by both functionalists and Marxists — they disagree only about whose economy and at whose expense. For Durkheim and Davis & Moore, education serves a consensual economy by allocating talent and building solidarity; the apparent meritocracy Item B describes is genuine and benefits everyone. For Althusser and Bowles & Gintis, education serves a capitalist economy by reproducing and legitimating class inequality — the 'universalistic standards' of Item B are precisely the ideological device that makes exploitation appear fair, so that, as Althusser argues, the working class blame themselves rather than the system. Willis's Learning to Labour offers the most sophisticated synthesis: his 'lads' actively resist the school yet reproduce their own subordination, showing that the economy is served not through passive conditioning but through pupils' own constrained agency. Yet to reduce education entirely to the economy is itself questionable. Postmodernists argue this is an outdated modernist metanarrative ill-suited to a flexible, diverse economy, while the New Right insist that a state-monopoly education system actually fails the economy, hence their demand for marketisation. On balance, the economic function is central but not exhaustive: education simultaneously performs solidarity-building, social-control, credentialing, and childcare functions, so the view in the question captures a major truth while overstating it as the single 'main' function." This sustains a theory-anchored argument throughout, uses Willis synoptically to reconcile the structure–agency debate, integrates all four perspectives, qualifies the question's wording, and reaches a genuinely evaluative conclusion.
Examiner-style commentary: The Top-band answer succeeds because evaluation is the spine of the essay, not an afterthought. It recognises the subtle point that functionalists and Marxists agree on the fact of an economic function while disagreeing on its character, uses Willis synoptically to bridge the structure–agency debate, and qualifies the question's wording ("main") rather than accepting it uncritically. The Item is used analytically rather than merely quoted. To push even higher, a candidate could quantify the meritocracy critique with reference to persistent class gaps in achievement and could weigh the New Right's distinctive claim that the state (not capitalism) is the real obstacle to an efficient economic function.
Contemporary debates extend these classic perspectives. The expansion of academies and free schools since 2010 has been read by some as the triumph of New Right marketisation and by others (notably Stephen Ball) as "privatisation by stealth." The growth of credentialism — the inflation of the qualifications required for a given job — has revived Marxist arguments that education increasingly serves to ration opportunity rather than expand it (Brown, Lauder and Ashton's "opportunity trap"). The COVID-19 pandemic and the abrupt shift to online learning reignited postmodernist claims about the breakup of the standardised modernist school, while simultaneously exposing how sharply the digital divide reproduces class inequality, lending support to the Marxists. Finally, debates about decolonising the curriculum put fresh pressure on the functionalist assumption that schools transmit a single, shared, consensual culture, asking instead whose culture the "shared" curriculum actually represents. Strong candidates bring one or two of these contemporary debates into an essay to demonstrate that the theoretical perspectives remain live, contested, and directly relevant to current policy.
This content is aligned with the AQA A-Level Sociology (7192) specification.