Functionalists see society as a system of interconnected institutions that each perform positive functions, and they regard education as one of the most important. This essay sets out the functionalist view and evaluates it against the Marxist, Bourdieu-influenced and New Right perspectives, arguing that while functionalism usefully identifies what education does, its central claim that education is meritocratic and benefits everyone cannot be sustained.
The functionalist case. Durkheim argued education creates social solidarity by transmitting shared norms and values (a 'society in miniature') and teaches the specialist skills a complex division of labour requires. Parsons argued school is a bridge between the family and society, moving pupils from the particularistic standards of the family to the universalistic, meritocratic standards of wider society. Davis and Moore added that education performs role allocation, sifting and sorting pupils by ability into the jobs best suited to their talents, so that unequal rewards are fair and motivate effort. The strength of this view is that education clearly does socialise pupils, teach skills and allocate people to roles.
Marxist criticism. Marxists argue education benefits capitalism, not society as a whole. Althusser saw education as an ideological state apparatus reproducing an obedient workforce; Bowles and Gintis argued the hidden curriculum and the correspondence principle prepare pupils for exploitation, while the 'myth of meritocracy' legitimates inequality by making failure seem deserved. Willis showed how working-class 'lads' reproduce their own class position. This directly challenges the functionalist claim of fairness.
Bourdieu and the meritocracy debate. Bourdieu's concept of cultural capital explains HOW inequality is reproduced: schools reward the culture, language and tastes of the middle class, so middle-class pupils are advantaged from the start. Evidence that social class strongly predicts attainment supports the view that education is not the level playing field functionalists assume.
The New Right and social democratic angles. The New Right share the functionalist faith in meritocracy but argue state education is inefficient and should be marketised, while social democrats argue education should actively promote equality of opportunity — both imply functionalism is too complacent about how well the current system works.
Evaluation. Functionalism is not worthless: education genuinely does socialise pupils, transmit skills and allocate roles, and even critics accept it is a powerful socialising institution. The disagreement is over whether it is FAIR and benefits ALL. Here the Marxist and Bourdieu critiques are persuasive, because class continues to shape attainment, undermining the meritocracy claim. However, Marxism can be too deterministic — Willis shows pupils have agency, and not all working-class pupils fail.
Conclusion. Functionalism usefully describes what education does, but its assumption that education is meritocratic and benefits everyone equally does not survive the evidence that class powerfully shapes outcomes. The view is therefore a partial one: a full account must combine the functionalist insight into education's functions with the conflict perspectives' insight that those functions are performed unequally and serve some groups more than others. On balance, the critics have the stronger case.