Education Quiz

Functionalists view education as a key institution that maintains social stability and cohesion. According to Émile Durkheim, education transmits society’s shared values, norms and culture, fostering social solidarity. Talcott Parsons sees education as a bridge between family and wider society, operating on meritocratic principles where achievement is based on ability and effort. Schools perform key functions such as role allocation (Davis and Moore), sorting individuals into appropriate occupational roles. Education, therefore, contributes to social integration and prepares individuals for participation in the economy.

Marxists argue that education reproduces class inequality and serves the interests of the capitalist ruling class. Bowles and Gintis (1976) claim the education system mirrors the workplace through the “correspondence principle,” promoting conformity and obedience rather than creativity. Althusser sees education as an Ideological State Apparatus that legitimises class inequality through the myth of meritocracy. However, critics such as Willis (1977) show that working-class pupils may resist schooling, suggesting education does not fully socialise pupils into capitalist ideology. Neo-Marxists also argue the system is more complex than simple reproduction.

The New Right shares similarities with functionalism but is more critical of state education. They argue the system has failed to meet the needs of the economy and lacks accountability. Chubb and Moe (1990) advocate for marketisation and parental choice, suggesting competition raises standards. The New Right believe education should prepare pupils for work and instil traditional values. Critics argue that marketisation increases inequality as middle-class parents are better able to exploit choice. Furthermore, it may lead to schools focusing more on image than on equality or learning.

Feminists argue that education has historically reproduced gender inequalities, though progress has been made. Radical feminists highlight the persistence of patriarchal structures within schools, such as gendered subject choices and sexual harassment. Liberal feminists focus on legal and policy reforms that promote equality, such as the National Curriculum and the Sex Discrimination Act. However, intersectional feminists note that gender interacts with class and ethnicity, meaning not all girls benefit equally. While educational achievement among girls has risen, feminist theorists argue the hidden curriculum still reinforces gender roles and male dominance.

Functionalists argue that education provides essential skills for the workforce and ensures role allocation based on merit. It helps match individuals to appropriate occupational roles, contributing to an efficient economy. Marxists, however, see the relationship as one of exploitation: education reproduces labour power and conditions workers to accept capitalist authority. The correspondence principle (Bowles and Gintis) highlights how schools mirror workplace hierarchies, producing a compliant workforce. Thus, education for Marxists sustains rather than challenges economic inequality.

Social class remains the strongest predictor of educational achievement. Material deprivation (lack of resources, overcrowded housing, poor diet) can hinder attainment. Cultural deprivation theorists (Douglas, Bernstein) argue that working-class parents may place less value on education or use restricted speech codes. Bourdieu adds that middle-class pupils possess greater cultural capital, aligning with school values. However, Marxists criticise these explanations for “blaming the victim” and highlight structural inequalities within the education system itself. Recent policies such as the Pupil Premium aim to address these disparities but with mixed success.

Girls now outperform boys at most levels of education. Explanations include changes in the labour market, feminism’s influence on aspirations, and the introduction of non-exam assessment, which favour girls’ learning styles. Teachers may hold higher expectations for girls, promoting achievement. However, boys are often associated with anti-school subcultures and lower literacy levels. Feminists note that while attainment has improved, gender stereotypes persist in subject choice and career pathways. Postfeminist critiques also point to new pressures on girls to balance academic success with traditional femininity.

Ethnic achievement varies widely. Studies show that Chinese and Indian pupils often outperform, while Black Caribbean and Pakistani pupils may underachieve. External factors include racism, language barriers, and material deprivation. Internal factors include teacher labelling (Gillborn and Youdell’s “educational triage”), institutional racism, and ethnocentric curricula. However, some minority groups show resilience and high aspirations. This also doesn’t explain why white working-class boys often underperform other groups. Intersectionality highlights how ethnicity interacts with gender and class, complicating simple generalisations about achievement patterns.

The 1988 Education Reform Act introduced marketisation through league tables, open enrolment and the National Curriculum. These reforms aimed to raise standards via competition and parental choice but often reinforced class inequalities (Ball et al., 1994). Later policies such as the Academies Programme, Free Schools and vocational training expanded diversity but also encouraged privatisation. New Labour’s focus on “education, education, education” sought to promote equality through initiatives like Education Action Zones, though critics argue inequality persists. Overall, policies have shaped education as both a public good and a market commodity.

The hidden curriculum refers to the informal lessons, values and expectations transmitted through the school environment rather than the formal curriculum. Examples include obedience to authority, competition, punctuality and gender roles. Marxists see it as reinforcing capitalist ideology, while feminists argue it reproduces patriarchy. Interactionists, however, focus on how pupils interpret and negotiate these messages. The hidden curriculum is significant because it shapes pupils’ identities and future behaviours, often perpetuating existing inequalities.

Pupil subcultures form in response to school experiences and teacher labelling. Lacey (1970) identified pro-school and anti-school subcultures; the latter often emerge from streaming and labelling, leading to self-fulfilling prophecies. Willis (1977) found that working-class “lads” rejected school values, seeing education as irrelevant to their future manual work. However, more recent research shows diversity among subcultures, including “pro-education” minority groups. Subcultures reveal how internal processes, not just external factors, contribute to inequality.

Globalisation has increased competition among nations, leading to policy borrowing and an emphasis on standards, testing and employability. The UK has adopted ideas from international systems (e.g. performance measurement through PISA rankings). Education now stresses global skills, ICT literacy and vocational training for a flexible labour market. However, critics argue this focus narrows education to economic utility, undermining creativity and equality. Globalisation also exposes inequalities between developed and developing countries, such as the “global gender apartheid” in education.

Sociologists use various methods to study educational issues, such as class differences in achievement or teacher labelling. For instance, observations allow researchers to capture classroom dynamics but raise ethical concerns about pupil consent. Questionnaires can reach large samples but may not reflect pupils’ true experiences. Interviews provide depth but may be influenced by power imbalances between adult researchers and young respondents. The key in “Methods in Context” is applying the strengths and limitations of each method to the specific educational setting.

Vocational education has been promoted by both New Right and social democratic governments but for different reasons. The New Right view it as a way to meet economic needs and improve employability, aligning education with labour market demands. Social democrats see it as enhancing equality of opportunity by providing alternative routes for working-class students. However, critics argue vocational routes often reinforce class divisions, offering lower status qualifications. Since 1988, policies have sought to integrate work-based training, but its value remains contested.

Explanations for educational inequalities combine external (home, class, culture) and internal (school processes) factors. Structural theories such as Marxism and feminism highlight systemic inequalities, while interactionism focuses on micro-level interactions, such as labelling and pupil identity. Functionalists emphasise meritocracy, whereas the New Right stresses individual responsibility. A comprehensive understanding recognises the interplay between material conditions, cultural values and institutional practices. Therefore, differential achievement reflects not individual failings but deeply rooted social structures and processes.