Applying material from Item B and your knowledge, evaluate the view that ‘while
Marxist and Functionalist approaches focus on similar issues, they reach very different
conclusions about the role of education’ (30 marks)
Item B: Functionalist and Marxist sociologists are interested in similar aspects of the role of
the education system. For example, both examine the relationship between education and work.
Both perspectives also look at how norms and values are transmitted through education.
However, while Marxists and functionalists focus on similar issues, they reach very different
conclusions about the role of education.
plan :
Introduction → brief explanation of the conflicting views
P1 → functionalism - Durkheim and Parsons; society in a miniature
- Meritocracy
- Socialising agent
- Criticism → melvin Tumin; equal opportunities may not exist
P2 → marxism; education is nothing but an ideological state apparatus (Althusser)
- Myth of meritocracy
- False class consciousness
- Criticism → marx criticism education but fail to provide alternative
P3 → functionalists education teaches specialist skills
- Davis and moore; role allocation
- Criticism → Dennis wrong; functionalists have an over socialised view of students
P4 → marxism; hidden curriculum - the education system seeks to reproduce an obedient workforce
- Correspondence principle; hierarchies in school similar to hierarchies in the workplace
- Criticism from willis learning to labour; not all students passively accept this
Conclusion → summary of both views and how they differ but how they are similar as well
, Both functionalists and marxists have defined the role of education and how it performs different
functions for society. While functionalists often take on a constructive positive approach to explaining
the vital functions education performs, marxists oppose this and express their conflict views
concerning how the education system solely performs functions of the capitalist system in favour of
the bourgeoisie.
Durkheim, a functionalist sociologist, takes on the view of how the education system allows youths
to be integrated into society. He argues that in fact the education system is a miniature society in a
miniature and ultimately acts to socialize members into a shared set of norms and values (value
consensus) in preparation for their future. Durkheim also argues that the education system allows for
the creation and maintenance of social solidarity; meaning it creates a sense of trust and
understanding between society members and helps to prevent anarchy. It also acts as a way in which
culture is transmitted and maintained through generations. An example would be through the teaching
of history allowing students to connect over a shared heritage. Functionalists often believe a nurture
approach to development that when we were born we were born with a ‘blank slate’ which is why they
emphasise the role of education as a secondary socialising agent as it allows the development of
individuality. Parsons takes on the same view and describes education as a bridge between the family
and wider society. Within the family we have specialist rules whereas in education we have universal
and impersonal rules. Parsons also argues that in school such as wider society status is gained
through achievement this is known as meritocracy; which is ‘equal opportunity’ if you work hard you
will be rewarded. Therefore they focus less on ascribed status but rather the achieved status one that
you gain through individual work. However these views have been criticised by Tumin et al who
argues that equal opportunities may not exist as we find that achievement is greatly influenced by
social class and gender.
Marxists take on an entirely different approach to explaining education, where they disagree with all
the functionalists' claims. Marxists claim that education is nothing but a tool by which the bourgeoisie
use to maintain their power over the proletariat, Louis Althusser states this is done through the
ideological state apparatus. This apparatus creates and reproduces class inequality by imposing the
culture of the ruling class onto the working class student through the national curriculum, it acts to
appear acceptable in order to persuade the working classes to accept their submissive position in
society, this is known as the false class consciousness. This false class consciousness legitimizes
inequality as the working class are unaware of their exploitation. Thus they disagree with
functionalists' claims of meritocracy and categorize it as a myth in order to maintain this false class
consciousness as peoples are manipulated to believing that success or failure is based on merit
whereas in reality their class background will determine this. This is supported by Bourdieu et al who
argue that the working class are effectively manipulated into accepting their failure and limited social
mobility. The culture of the middle class is forced onto the working class as it is seen as more valuable
and their cultural assets are seen as worthy of investment and reward therefore will gain more cultural
capital. Halsey et al criticises the marxist approach as they fail to provide an alternative in addition to
ignoring the role of gender and ethnicity that may interplay.
Functionalists argue that the education system may also seek to produce specialist skills. Durkheim
argues that education allows students to learn specialist skills which is required in the modern
economies thus allowing the production of a division in labour creating social solidarity. Davis and
Moore suggest that the teaching of specialist skills allows role allocation (in future work) as it ensures
that the most talented have that opportunity to undertake important roles, this is important as modern
economies are a product of human capital therefore when education allocates the best jobs to the
best workers this maximises productivity. Education therefore acts as a ‘proving ground’ for those of
higher ability and work ethic. It also allows students to identify their skills and aim to focus on them to
ensure that they will be qualified for the best possible jobs. However Dennis wrong argues that
functionalists take an oversocialized view as they assume that students are passive and will
submissively accept the role they have been allocated to, they fail to acknowledge that pupils may
Marxist and Functionalist approaches focus on similar issues, they reach very different
conclusions about the role of education’ (30 marks)
Item B: Functionalist and Marxist sociologists are interested in similar aspects of the role of
the education system. For example, both examine the relationship between education and work.
Both perspectives also look at how norms and values are transmitted through education.
However, while Marxists and functionalists focus on similar issues, they reach very different
conclusions about the role of education.
plan :
Introduction → brief explanation of the conflicting views
P1 → functionalism - Durkheim and Parsons; society in a miniature
- Meritocracy
- Socialising agent
- Criticism → melvin Tumin; equal opportunities may not exist
P2 → marxism; education is nothing but an ideological state apparatus (Althusser)
- Myth of meritocracy
- False class consciousness
- Criticism → marx criticism education but fail to provide alternative
P3 → functionalists education teaches specialist skills
- Davis and moore; role allocation
- Criticism → Dennis wrong; functionalists have an over socialised view of students
P4 → marxism; hidden curriculum - the education system seeks to reproduce an obedient workforce
- Correspondence principle; hierarchies in school similar to hierarchies in the workplace
- Criticism from willis learning to labour; not all students passively accept this
Conclusion → summary of both views and how they differ but how they are similar as well
, Both functionalists and marxists have defined the role of education and how it performs different
functions for society. While functionalists often take on a constructive positive approach to explaining
the vital functions education performs, marxists oppose this and express their conflict views
concerning how the education system solely performs functions of the capitalist system in favour of
the bourgeoisie.
Durkheim, a functionalist sociologist, takes on the view of how the education system allows youths
to be integrated into society. He argues that in fact the education system is a miniature society in a
miniature and ultimately acts to socialize members into a shared set of norms and values (value
consensus) in preparation for their future. Durkheim also argues that the education system allows for
the creation and maintenance of social solidarity; meaning it creates a sense of trust and
understanding between society members and helps to prevent anarchy. It also acts as a way in which
culture is transmitted and maintained through generations. An example would be through the teaching
of history allowing students to connect over a shared heritage. Functionalists often believe a nurture
approach to development that when we were born we were born with a ‘blank slate’ which is why they
emphasise the role of education as a secondary socialising agent as it allows the development of
individuality. Parsons takes on the same view and describes education as a bridge between the family
and wider society. Within the family we have specialist rules whereas in education we have universal
and impersonal rules. Parsons also argues that in school such as wider society status is gained
through achievement this is known as meritocracy; which is ‘equal opportunity’ if you work hard you
will be rewarded. Therefore they focus less on ascribed status but rather the achieved status one that
you gain through individual work. However these views have been criticised by Tumin et al who
argues that equal opportunities may not exist as we find that achievement is greatly influenced by
social class and gender.
Marxists take on an entirely different approach to explaining education, where they disagree with all
the functionalists' claims. Marxists claim that education is nothing but a tool by which the bourgeoisie
use to maintain their power over the proletariat, Louis Althusser states this is done through the
ideological state apparatus. This apparatus creates and reproduces class inequality by imposing the
culture of the ruling class onto the working class student through the national curriculum, it acts to
appear acceptable in order to persuade the working classes to accept their submissive position in
society, this is known as the false class consciousness. This false class consciousness legitimizes
inequality as the working class are unaware of their exploitation. Thus they disagree with
functionalists' claims of meritocracy and categorize it as a myth in order to maintain this false class
consciousness as peoples are manipulated to believing that success or failure is based on merit
whereas in reality their class background will determine this. This is supported by Bourdieu et al who
argue that the working class are effectively manipulated into accepting their failure and limited social
mobility. The culture of the middle class is forced onto the working class as it is seen as more valuable
and their cultural assets are seen as worthy of investment and reward therefore will gain more cultural
capital. Halsey et al criticises the marxist approach as they fail to provide an alternative in addition to
ignoring the role of gender and ethnicity that may interplay.
Functionalists argue that the education system may also seek to produce specialist skills. Durkheim
argues that education allows students to learn specialist skills which is required in the modern
economies thus allowing the production of a division in labour creating social solidarity. Davis and
Moore suggest that the teaching of specialist skills allows role allocation (in future work) as it ensures
that the most talented have that opportunity to undertake important roles, this is important as modern
economies are a product of human capital therefore when education allocates the best jobs to the
best workers this maximises productivity. Education therefore acts as a ‘proving ground’ for those of
higher ability and work ethic. It also allows students to identify their skills and aim to focus on them to
ensure that they will be qualified for the best possible jobs. However Dennis wrong argues that
functionalists take an oversocialized view as they assume that students are passive and will
submissively accept the role they have been allocated to, they fail to acknowledge that pupils may
