KFs: Functionalism Education is essential part of socialisation – contributing to

process of children learning norms/ values of society Essential in providing skilled workforce Comprehensive: Nursery to PhD State-funded, Private Funded, Religious 1944 Educ Act: Tripartite System 1960’s Educ Act: Comprehensive System Conservative Policies 79-97 (Thatcher, Major) Parents

Charter, Opting Out of LA Control.. Blairite Policies (Blair) National Testing, League Tables, PFI &

PPP (Private-companies’ funding of improvement of state schools’ facilities eg Bathgate Academy upgraded)

KFs: Functionalism Functionalism was main sociological

theory on education until 1960’s Questions like what ‘function’ does

education provide for society? How does education relate to other institutions like work, family, the state?

Education teaches norms/ values of society promoting agreement that education is important (value consensus)

Functionalism – CRs Too simplistic? Do all in society agree with ONE

set of norms/ values? Do ALL agree education is to be valued and worthwhile? Perhaps several conflicting sets of values about what’s important?

Assumes education is a meritocracy – assumes best paid are best qualified, also ignores the fact that WHOLE GROUPS are doing better / worse than other WHOLE groups – ie surely ALL girls are not academically better that ALL boys?

Assumes education meets needs of modern economy providing skilled workers needed by modern employers – many jobs have skills shortage, many school courses irrelevant to modern jobs?

Functionalism – Evaluated - pos Good in explaining how education affects

eg income, employment, lifestyle Explains how schools select (most able)

pupils and allocate them to most rewarding jobs in society

Explains how pupils are selected on merit and assessed by ability and given roles in society based on skills/ qualification level so more qualified do more difficult (& better paid) jobs and most agree this is fair if unequal

KFs - Marxism Explain about Capitalism and 2-class system Education is used by Bourgeoisie to control the working

class Proletariat and ‘socialise’ them into accepting authority. Schools teach pupils to obey teachers, turn up on time, work hard, preparing future workers for obeying Capitalist owners, turning up for work, working hard. Education therefore only serves the interests of Capitalism not of ‘whole society’

Teaches pupils not to ‘think’ or ‘challenge’ authority – makes sure workers don’t THINK about their exploitation

Education also teaches children of the wealthy owners to expect to have authority, these are the only children who really achieve anything in school, making sure THEY ALONE will become the next generation of Bourgeoisie

KFs - Marxism Education has replaced religion as the method

of ‘indoctrination’ making sure the workers ‘believe’ in the values of hard work and obedience

Teaches that Capitalism is fair and reasonable – teachers/ lecturers (intelligentsia) are tools used by Bourgeoisie to reinforce Capitalist ideology

There is a link between groups who have social relations with each other in school and those same groups have social relations in the workplace (lower class pupils don’t mix with higher class pupils – even educated in different schools!)

Marxism- CRs Sees people as influenced/ controlled by the

economic system (Capitalism) and having little/ no individual control over their own future or environment

Teachers & Uni lecturers are NOT all ‘tools of the Capitalist system’ – many teachers themselves are ‘radicals’ and dislike Capitalist inequality

Individual pupils CAN control their own learning environment – Wills’ study ‘Learning to Labour’ showed how pupils can form anti-school cultures finding ways to break rules and amuse themselves

Marxism- Eval - Pos Good at analysing inequality in

educational achievement between social classes, which is reflected by inequality between social classes in adult life in the Capitalist economy (only Bourgeoisie children achieve in education and do well in work as adults)

New Right – KFs New right approach to education: reflects Conservative

Party policies 79-97 Based on economic theory - supply & demand – make

schools institutions which provide a service to the customer, who is free to choose which school to send their children; schools compete for pupils based on exam results performance.

Schools will become more efficient if they can spend own budget (opt out of LA control) and are competitive against other schools for best results

Parents can choose to send children to PRIVATE school Inspectors (HMI) make sure schools are maintaining

standards and will investigate schools seen as ‘under-achieving’

New Right – CRs Under-estimates/ ignores class inequality: Does allowing

market forces into education REALLY create free choice for ALL parents? Assumes ALL parents have the choice of sending their child to a (better?) school outwith own catchment area – can lower-income families REALLY afford to do this if no £ for travel to this other school?

Results in parents selecting some schools over others – creates ‘league table’ of schools – how does this affect education of pupils in schools at the lower end?

Supporters of Comprehensive schools argue that a mix of abilities in classrooms/ schools raises the achievement of the lower-ability children – but parents of more able pupils now send children to other schools with better exam performance results

Private sector mentality (value for money, customers, competitiveness) can not be applied to education, health, etc. Success criteria should be completely different – eg investment in education will have long-term not immediate effect on performance

New Right – Eval - pos Schools are not accountable for their performace

– League tables etc mean schools have to explain how money is spend, exam results performance, etc

Both Conservative AND LABOUR Governments have supported increased educational accountability, competitiveness and measurement of performance: National Testing, League Tables, OFSTED/ HMI, Private Finance Initiatives/ PPP

Creates increased choice (albeit only for some parents) and ‘forces’ schools to improve standards and releases private money to improve facilities in schools which otherwise would have been impossible

Feminist Approaches - KFs Heavily critical of all other sociological theories of

education as they are from a male-orientated perspective (male-stream sociology)

Despite measures like Comprehensive Education and Sex Discrimination Act, sexual discrimination is widespread and endemic within education – results in girls not doing as well as boys as they’re not encouraged to do well if they are not expected to have a career!

Education as an institution is patriarchal, reflecting a wider society run by & for men reflected in areas such as classroom interaction (teacher-pupil time) and the ‘hidden curriculum’ – what pupils learn but are not actually taught – is sexist? Eg encouraging girls to take certain subjects? Encouraging males to expect a career and not girls?

Feminist Approaches - CRs Ignores changes which have taken place to encourage

ALL pupils to take ALL subjects, and expecting ALL pupils to achieve and have a career?

Impact of anti-discriminatory policies e.g. Sex Discrimination Act, Equal Pay act, Modern Studies looks at Equal Opportunities

By the 1990’s it’s BOYS that are under-achieving and girls are actually doing BETTER than boys, so schools can’t be sexist or discriminating against girls!

Some Feminist Education research has been criticised: In Spender’s study ‘Invisible Women – The Schooling Scandal’ (1983) it wasn’t clear how data was collected for claims made

Interactionists (action perspective) criticises Feminist approaches for over-emphasis of the impact of institutions on individuals (ie schools on girls) and under-estimating ability of girls to work hard and achieve and control their own future

Feminist Approaches – Eval - Pos Feminist sociologists have highlighted an otherwise-

ignored aspect of education inequality (gender) Recognises importance of education within the (sexist)

process of overall socialisation of young girls within a patriarchal, male-dominated society: Education further reinforces the different socialisation of boys/ girls seen in families, by encouraging girls/ boys to study different subjects at school

Despite legislation, recent evidence of gender inequality within education system: uptake of subjects by gender, lower academic/ career expectation of many girl pupils, teachers’ lower expectation?

Recent media attention on boys under-achievement, but little political/ media interest when girls were not doing well in schools (was this just ‘expected’.

Interactionist Theory KF’s Studies education through study of small

groups rather than (structural) influence of education of whole economy

Interaction of individuals – able to control their own achievement – pupil-teacher interaction and pupil-pupil interaction

‘Meanings’ are negotiated not fixed eg ‘achievement’

Interactionist Theory ST’s Good at analysing interaction of small groups

and how these interactions affect achievement – small groups are the norm in education

Good at explaining inequality in education and in the economy – eg Willis study Learning To Labour – boys who don’t value education fail exams do low paid unskilled jobs

Good at explaining the ability of individuals (groups?) to control their own environment (eg to do well/ fail in school) – Revise, study, homework, attention & effort in class– Don’t do homework, truant, misbehave, no effort

Interactionist Theory ST’s There IS a relationship between work

and school BUT it is defined by PUPILS actions and demands, not the demands of the economy

Interactionist Theory WKNS’s Underestimates if not ignores the impact the

institution of education has on individuals – teachers’ attitudes/ expectations of pupils, rules, exam system… all affect/ restrict individual pupils’ achievement

Studies based on interaction of small groups therefore findings about impact of interactions on pupil achievement only apply to that small (classroom) group – not whole school EG Willis study: 12 boys

Recognises inequality in education and in work, but offers no solutions to the problem – suggests no way this can be addressed.

Aspect 1: Soc. Class & EducationKey Elements Social class is crucial in affecting

educational achievement in modern Britain Social class inequalities are clear in

academic achievement – higher social classes achieve higher grades in school

There is a strong link between ‘SOCIO-ECONOMIC BACKGROUND FACTORS’ such as family income, material factors, living conditions, cultural deprivation, and educational achievement

Aspect 1: Soc. Class & EducationKey Elements Social class is crucial in affecting

educational achievement in modern Britain Social class inequalities are clear in

academic achievement – higher social classes achieve higher grades in school

There is a strong link between ‘SOCIO-ECONOMIC BACKGROUND FACTORS’ such as family income, material factors, living conditions, cultural deprivation, and educational achievement

Aspect 1: Soc. Class & EducationStudy 1: Douglas ‘64 Douglas: The Home & The School (64) shows that

degree of parental interest in their child’s education could impact on child’s actual achievement

Achievement of lower-class children maybe inhibited by lack of parental interest/ support/ value of education generally

POS: Good as recognised importance of ‘culture’ of parents encouraging child to do well at school

POS: Revealed inequality of achievement based on/ reflecting social class inequalities

NEG: Assumes lower attendance at Parents Night of lower-class parents means these parents are not interested in their child’s education: Could be MANY reasons for not attending eg more likely to do shift work?

Aspect 1: Soc. Class & EducationStudy 2 Rutter 1979 Michael Rutter’s study of inner-London schools in 1979

‘Fifteen Thousand Hours – Secondary School Effects on Children’ showed that schools CAN make a difference to pupils’ achievement

This refuted ideas of ‘de-schoolers’ like Illich & Navarro who claimed achievement was class-based and that schools could not really influence achievement

Rutter’s study showed major differences between schools’ achievements, with pupils of similar socio-economic backgrounds. This meant schools DID have an effect on pupil achievement DESPITE pupil background – the ‘school effect’

Successful schools were those which emphasised academic achievement (ethos of achievement) emphasised praise/ rewards (promoting positive behaviour) and strong leadership

Aspect 1: Soc. Class & EducationStudy 2 Rutter 1979 - Eval Important as showed the importance of schools in

affecting achievement beyond that expected, given background of pupils

Showed importance of teacher-pupil relations – teacher expectations of pupils can lead to self-fulfilling prophecies: teacher expects me (not) to do well so I will (not) try hard and will therefore (not) achieve – so teacher’s expectations come true

Teachers label pupils? Perceived social class leads to perceived ability level by teachers?

Aspect 1: Soc. Class & EducationStudy 2 Rutter 1979 - Eval Criticised for over-emphasising importance

of labelling/ teacher expectations: only impacts on achievement if repeated regularly

Education as a system reinforces inequality as a whole institution, through eg teacher’s language, all geared to suit children of middle-class families – individual teachers/ expectations less important?

Aspect 1: Soc. Class & EducationStudy 3 Chubb & Moe 1997: Politics, Markets & Organisation of Schools - USA New Right Perspective on Education Market forces applied to Education in USA to reverse declining

standards Policies of Labour & Conservative governments (see New right KFs)

in UK too State schools can’t raise standards as there are too many groups

with different needs (parents of different social classes, Local Authority, Government)

Private schools offer opportunity to raise standards – only responding to needs of small group (parents of better-off pupils) Competition between these schools – competing for best pupils with wealthy parents who can pay highest fees! – helps to raise standards: Parents who can afford fees will select (fee-paying) schools with best exam results

Suggest ‘voucher system’ in state sector – either go to a state school or use the voucher (taxpayer’s money saved by you NOT attending a state school) towards cost of Private fees

Aspect 1: Soc. Class & EducationStudy 3 Chubb & Moe 1997: Politics, Markets & Organisation of Schools – USA - POS: Based results/ conclusions on research of 60,000

students in over 1000 schools NEG: Assumes ‘voucher’ scheme would create equality:

Poor would still be disadvantaged with less knowledge of the system

NEG: Evidence from Scotland shows comprehensive schools with wide social background mixture raises standards of lower-ability pupils – ISEP: Improving School Effectiveness Project – MacBeath & Mortimore 1996

Social class differences would become MORE obvious: Schools in rich areas would attract more pupils/ money/ vouchers, schools in poorer areas would have few pupils and would close – wider social class gap

Aspect 2: Gender & Education – Key Elements

Dismisses biological explanations of differences in gender performance in education - outdated idea that girls’ brains biologically were less capable of academic achievement!

Explains education from feminist/ female perspective – importance of male dominated society (Patriarchy) in affecting educational achievement of girls

Looks at gender issues related to: – classroom teacher-pupil interaction (giving more help

to boys?) – labelling (not expecting girls to achieve/ need to

achieve/ have a career?) – and the school curriculum (expecting boys/ girls to

select different subjects?)

Aspect 2: Gender & Education Study 1 – Sue Sharpe’s ‘Just Like A Girl – How Girls Learn to be Women’ (1976)

Sharpe’s study (above) found girl’s priorities (in ’76 at least) were MARRIAGE & HAVING A FAMILY, NOT EDUCATION

Any employment expectations were associated with traditional views of ‘female’ work – office, clerical, shops, care (children), health & beauty

POS: Recognised continuing inequality within education, between girls/ boys

POS; Also recognised importance of social class in terms of academic expectation/ value of education: Girls from better off families had higher ambition

NEG: Overstated impact of education as a system, on girls’ achievement – are girls not capable of affecting their own achievement? Some girls do really well!

NEG: Ignores huge changes made/ progress in sexual equality – girls & careers, subject choice, & girls now doing BETTER than boys!

Aspect 2: Gender & Education Study 1 – Dale Spender – Gender Re-Enforcement in Schools

Dale Spender – found continued re-enforcement of gender inequality in some schools

Boys given 60% of teacher’s time Teachers giving positive reaction to

(incorrect) responses given by BOYS to questions,- given another chance, etc but negative reaction to (incorrect) responses given by GIRLS to questions,- ‘no that’s wrong, can a boy give me the right answer…?

Aspect 2: Gender & Education Study 1 – Dale Spender – Gender Re-Enforcement in Schools

POS: Highlights importance of gender differences in teacher-pupil interaction

POS: Highlights different teacher response to male/ female pupils – also seen in written work comments

NEG: Over-emphasises importance of education as an institution on girls’ achievement – Perhaps boys given more attention because they are more demanding/ more of a discipline problem?

Too much emphasis on interviews (opinions of pupils/ teachers) rather than observation to establish what REALLY happens, how much time teachers REALLY gave to boys rather than pupils’ impressions

Aspect 3: Ethnicity & Education

a