Theories about the Role of Education

Social solidarity: functionalists such as Durkheim argue education creates social solidarity by transmitting society's shared norms and values, binding individuals together into a community.

Role allocation: Davis and Moore argue education 'sifts and sorts' pupils according to their ability, allocating them to the jobs best suited to their talents through qualifications.

Producing an obedient workforce: through the hidden curriculum and the correspondence principle (Bowles and Gintis), education teaches pupils to accept hierarchy and obey authority, preparing them to be compliant workers.

The myth of meritocracy: education promotes the false belief that success is based purely on ability and effort, so those who fail blame themselves rather than the unequal system, which legitimates class inequality.

Way 1 — transmitting shared norms and values. Functionalists such as Durkheim argue that education acts as a 'society in miniature', teaching all pupils the same norms and values regardless of their background. By learning a shared history, language and moral code, pupils come to feel part of a wider community. This creates social solidarity and value consensus, because individuals internalise the same beliefs about how to behave, which holds society together.

Way 2 — applying universalistic standards. Parsons argued that school acts as a bridge between the family and wider society. In the family a child is judged by particularistic standards (treated as special), but in school everyone is judged by the same universalistic standards and meritocratic rules. This teaches pupils to accept that society treats everyone by shared, impersonal rules, reinforcing agreement on the values of achievement and equality of opportunity that underpin value consensus.

Criticism 1 — education serves capitalism, not society as a whole. Marxists argue functionalists wrongly assume education benefits everyone. Althusser argued education is an ideological state apparatus that reproduces a docile, obedient workforce and transmits ruling-class ideology. So what functionalists call 'social solidarity' is really the reproduction of values that keep capitalism going, benefiting the ruling class rather than all.

Criticism 2 — meritocracy is a myth. Functionalists claim education fairly allocates roles by ability (Davis and Moore). Bowles and Gintis reply that this 'meritocracy' is a myth: success is shaped by class background, not just ability, and the myth makes those who fail blame themselves rather than an unfair system. Bourdieu adds that middle-class pupils succeed because they possess cultural capital that schools reward, so education reproduces class inequality while pretending to be fair.

Argument 1 — education benefits capitalism, not society as a whole (Marxist). Marxists argue education reproduces class inequality to serve the ruling class. Althusser saw education as an ideological state apparatus producing an obedient workforce, while Bowles and Gintis argued the hidden curriculum teaches working-class pupils to accept hierarchy and low-status work (the correspondence principle). The 'myth of meritocracy' then persuades those who fail that it is their own fault, legitimating inequality. On this view, education benefits the bourgeoisie by reproducing a compliant, divided workforce, not 'society as a whole'. Willis's study of the 'lads' showed how working-class pupils end up in working-class jobs, reproducing inequality across generations.

Argument 2 — education advantages some groups over others (Bourdieu and feminism). Bourdieu argued that schools are built around the cultural capital of the dominant class, so middle-class pupils arrive already advantaged while working-class pupils are disadvantaged — a process of cultural reproduction dressed up as fairness. Feminists add that a gendered and sometimes ethnocentric curriculum can disadvantage girls and minority ethnic pupils. Because education systematically advantages the privileged and disadvantages others, it cannot be said to benefit everyone equally; it benefits the already-powerful while reproducing existing inequalities.

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.