Perspectives on Education

Class and alienation

To understand the different perspectives on education, it is necessary to understand the concept of class. From this point of view the conflict structuralism of Marx is the starting point. This states that individuals are born into different classes where their consciousness and opportunities are determined by their economic situation. A member of the working class leads one kind of life; a member of the bourgeoisie leads another. To say that there exist classes in society is to say that society is stratified. Here the essential claim of Marxism is that the educational system serves to perpetuate stratification.

The other vital concept of Marxism is that of alienation. This describes the objective situation of workers who are exploited by capitalism. Because they are exploited they are divorced from true satisfaction in their work — this is alienation. They will also experience subjective features of alienation — the work is repetitive and boring, and alienated workers will feel like powerless slaves. The Marxists claim that alienation begins at school. Since one function of the education system is to browbeat children of the proletariat into accepting their class situation, children inevitably both are alienated and feel all the dissatisfaction that goes with alienation. This accounts for their anti-education attitudes, and goes a long way to explaining classroom conflict.

Marxist perspectives

The Marxist perspective is critical of the educational system, arguing that it is unfair, and serves to coerce people into accepting their “roles” in an unequal society.

Althusser is representative of the Marxist interpretation of the educational system, arguing that “Teachers are in effect agents of capitalism who through their classroom work reproduce the exploitative relations of capitalism. They produce pupil 'types' who will accordingly receive more or less education and enter the labour force at different points.”

The curriculum comprises the range of subjects taught at schools. When one thinks of a curriculum one initially thinks in terms of the specific skills, concepts and facts taught in each separate subject. However, on further reflection, these skills, concepts and facts may not be so relevant to everyday living. For example, how often does one use algebra in everyday problem solving? Marxists tend to regard the manifest curriculum as a “smoke screen” behind which the real agenda, or hidden curriculum, is operative. The aim of the hidden curriculum is to socialise young people into accepting the role assigned to them by the capitalist class. The hidden curriculum teaches submission, deference and respect for the established organisation of work. The majority of teachers unconsciously deliver the hidden curriculum. However, Marxists sometimes acknowledge that there are some “hero teachers” who heroically battle against the “evil” of the exploitative capitalist relations.

Sharp and Green's study of classroom interaction (1975) supports Althusser's Marxist view by maintaining that within the classroom a principle of hierarchisation is taught, which socialises pupils into accepting the principle of stratification. Pupils are taught this because they are classified into three types (1) ideal pupils who are easily controlled and self-motivated;(2) normal pupils, and (3) problem children.

Bowles & Gintis's work, Schooling in Capitalist America is another statement of the Althausser/Sharp/Green thesis that schooling prepares pupils for their roles as workers under capitalism through the correspondence in structure, processes and social relations between the school and the workplace. They call Marxism in this context reproduction theory.

Bowles & Gintis argue that different social groups are taught at school different values that will fit their roles in capitalist society:

1		Pupils destined to be workers are taught to follow rules.
2		Pupils destined for middle management are taught to be dependable.
3		Pupils destined for senior management are socialised to accept inwardly the norms of business.

Each “social” experience is associated with a different duration of education - internalisation of the norms of capitalism requires more time. The destiny of an individual is in fact determined by social background - for example, working class pupils leave school sooner, hence do not attain to the highest level.

There are some similarities and differences between Althuasser and Bowles & Gintis. They are all Marxists. But, whilst Bowles & Gintis propound an alienation theory arguing that the experience of schooling is fundamentally coercive and unsatisfying. Althausser, however, acknowledges that the content of the manifest curriculum can be satisfying.

Paul Willis's work Learning to Labour (1977) is a study of twelve recalcitrant working-class pupils, or “lads”, at a Midlands comprehensive. The “lads” are characterised by being:

1		Anti-school
2		Seeing mental labour as pointless and unmanly
3		Having a “powerful working-class culture”
4		Celebrating their masculinity in terms of money, violence, sexism and racism.

These features stem from their alienation. He notes that, ironically, by their resistance to school they effectively condemn themselves to working-class futures.

J. Anyon and M. Apple's Ideology and the Curriculum analyses American textbooks and argues that these present accounts of history and social structure which reflect the interests of politically and economically dominant groups. Bourdieu argues that the educational system serves to eliminate the working class from competition for higher levels of education.

Functionalist Views of Education

Functionalists take the view that society must be divided into separate groups, each of which performs a task that is necessary to the survival of society as a whole — the organic whole. Societies function well when people accept internally, either consciously or unconsciously, the need to contribute to the organic functioning of the whole of society. People agree voluntarily to submerge part of their individual identity in favour of the survival of all. They do this because they recognise that there is no simple alternative to society. They would accuse Marxists of “utopianism” — that is, dreaming up a “perfect”, but wholly unrealistic and unrealisable society based on a dream world. When people accept their role in society they develop a form of social conscience, which Durkheim labels the “conscience collective”.

Functionalists tend to look to the sociologist Emile Durkheim as the founder of their point of view. This is not entirely true. Modern functionalists, like Talcott Parsons, seek to defend capitalism, but Durkheim's vision of the organic society of the future was one in which there would be no inheritance of capital, so people would be assigned their functional role on the basis of merit alone. Modern capitalist societies are not meritocracies in this sense. Different individuals find different roles in society, but the opportunities of individuals are considerably affected by their class situation.

Although Durkheim is not exactly a defender of capitalism, his functionalism, which tells us that every social grouping is a functional part of the whole of society, tends to favour a defence of capitalism. Capitalists see the educational system as fair, and as preparing individuals for their roles in adult society according to their abilities.

Talcott Parsons sees the school classroom as a microcosm of society. It is a bridge between the family and wider society. In wider society status is achieved. Education socialises young people for adult roles.

According to Talcott Parson's Functionalism individuals interact with each other through the medium of social structures. They accept common standards of evaluation, which are moral standards or 'norms'. Sociological processes maintain these structures, and ensure stability through adherence to the norms. This is called a 'structuralist-functionalist' approach to social systems analysis. Parsons analyses the functions of society into:

1		Adaptation - the provision of physical necessities - the economic system.
2		Goal attainment - the establishment of the goals of society as a whole - the political system.
3		Pattern maintenance and tension management - serves to motivate individuals and resolve conflicts - kinship, family & marriage.
4		Integration - socialisation of individuals to accept the norms and control them if they don't - schools, churches, media, police and judicial system.

Therefore, Parsons sees education as serving a part in the function of integration. Through education individuals are socialised to conform. Education also supports the economic “imperative” of society by:

1		Inculcating certain technical skills and requirements.
2		Separating out potential workers for different points of entry to the labour market.

Regarding the integration “imperative” schooling specifically causes children to internalise social values and norms at a level which the family alone cannot achieve. In America elementary school education teaches American youth the value of fair competition. “It includes, above all, recognition that it is fair to give differential rewards for different levels of achievement, so long as there has been fair access to opportunity..” Functionalists maintain that there is a high degree of equality of opportunity within the education system Functionalism stresses the link between education and the economy. A malfunctioning educational system would be one in which individuals are not assigned the most appropriate role, and will hence lead to inefficiency.

This could be taken as an argument against elitism in education and in favour of a comprehensive system.

Davies and Moore follow Parsons claiming that “Education is the proving ground for ability and hence the selective agency for placing people in different statuses according to their capacities.”

Thus modern functionalists tend to assume that the education system is a meritocracy. Functionalists believe that the demands of industrial society for a skilled workforce are met by the educational system.

In criticism of functionalism:

1		Functionalism does not appear to offer a satisfactory account of conflict within educational systems. The goals and purposes of education are not generally agreed by professionals and employees within it.
2		It fails to deal adequately with the content of the curriculum and teacher-pupil interaction in the classroom.
3		It treats individuals as if they were the “puppets” of society. “Nothing more than the product of the societal norms and values which they internalise through their experiences of socialisation in the home, school, workplace etc.”
4		Functionalists, especially of the Talcott Parsons type, tend to idealise existing society and ignore facts that a critical of their own views. Seeking to argue that society is a meritocracy based on equality of opportunity, functionalists tend to be wilfully blind to the very real differences of educational experience between members of different classes. They seek to paint a rosy picture in which the functions of individuals in society are all assigned to them by the educational system, rather than by class.