Funnctionalism and Marxist Evaluation of Education

...

Functionalists, Davis and Moore (1945) argue education in modern society is a mechanism which ‘sifts’ and allocates individuals into certain positions in the job market, ensuring the most talented and qualified are selected for the most prestigious jobs through meritocracy (those who work the hardest achieve the most). (Bown. 2015, pg. 51) They argue that some jobs are more important to society than others, therefore, education helps to identify people capable of doing such jobs.

Davis and Moore believe the educational system is fair and based on equality of opportunity, arguing everyone who has the ability and puts in the effort has an equal chance of achieving success. Therefore, inequalities in society are legitimised, those who succeed deserve their success, and those who fail have only themselves to blame.

Marxists, however, argue ‘meritocracy’ is a myth and that functionalists ignore persistent inequalities in the educational system. Jerim (2013, pg. 3) discovered: “High achieving boys from the most advantaged family backgrounds in the UK are roughly 2 and 1/2 years ahead of their counterparts in the least advantaged households by the age of 15”, implying that without class advantages, talent and working hard is often not enough to succeed in education.

Interpretivists, Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) argue education is not simply meritocratic, they argue on many occasions the greater the expectation from a teacher towards a student the better they will do, as it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy, which they termed the Pygmalion effect, therefore they contest every student does not have equal opportunity.

The Marxist perspective also originated in the 19th century, evolving out of the ideas of Karl Marx (1818-83). Marx took a conflict view to society, arguing there is contention between the two major social groups of society; the ruling class or bourgeoisie (owners of means of production) and the subject class or proletariat (workers). Marxists see conflict arising from ruling class exploitation and oppression of the subject class, which can be found in the various institutions of society such as the education, and the political and legal system, all of which they believe are instruments of ruling class domination and serve to benefit its interests.

They see society as being divided into two parts; the economic base, which underpins everything in society, and consists of the means of production and the relations of production (the relationship between owners and labourers); and the superstructure which includes all of society’s institutions and is largely dictated by the economic base. Marxists argue the root of all societies problems stem from the unequal relations of the economic base and superstructure. Marxists are criticised…

The Marxist perspective see education as an important part of the superstructure and means of control, encouraging pupils to conform and accept their social positions. (Brown, K pg. 343) Brown states it performs two main functions in capitalist society; the reproduction of existing social class inequalities, passing them from generation to generation and serving to legitimate these inequalities through the myth of meritocracy (pg. 343).

Marxist Louis Althusser (1971) argued the primary role of education is the reproduction of an efficient and obedient labour force, which he argues involves the reproduction of necessary skills and mind set such as preparing people for mundane repetitive labour. Althusser argues that capitalist society cannot be sustained without help, as people could challenge the system and call for revolution. (Bowen, pg.52) Althusser stated education in contemporary society acts as a subconscious ideological state apparatus, a tool used by the ruling class to pass on its dominant ideology, justify the capitalist system and prevent the subject class rebelling against their exploitation (O’Leary pg. 8). He asserts educations performs the function of maintaining, legitimatising and reproducing class inequalities in wealth and power, which it does by transmitting capitalist values disguised as common values. Althusser further argues education provides the conditions necessary for capitalism to flourish (Chapman, pg. 8) without having to use force, which would expose its oppressive nature. Marxist Engel supports this view arguing the educational system mirrors that of working life and oppresses the working class.

Support for this Marxist view comes from Bowls and Gintis (1976) who developed the correspondence principle after studying school children in the USA. They highlight the fundamental role of education in capitalist societies as being the reproduction of a submissive and disciplined workforce. For example, they found that in school the students who succeed are the most obedient and unquestioning, rather than independent and inquisitive, they contend these qualities are valued in workers as they are taught to accept the authority of their employers, and not question their orders. Thus, they propose, education corresponds to employment as students learn status hierarchy and accept their lowly positions as natural and inevitable, and enter the workplace ready to submit to a natural hierarchy of power and status, which is termed by Marx as ‘false consciousness’. Bowles and Gintis also argue students are motivated by the extrinsic rewards of exam success rather than enjoying learning for its own sake (intrinsic reward), just as workers are motivated by wages rather than job satisfaction, (Chapman, p.g8) which they suggest prepares students for the world of work.

Bowles and Gintis believe that the content of the curriculum isn’t important and that pupils learn most from the ‘hidden curriculum’ (unspoken rules of school). Brown argues schools teach the acceptance of hierarchy as teachers give the orders which pupils obey, just as workers obey bosses in the workplace. Examples of the ‘hidden curriculum’ include; respecting authority of teachers regardless of what they say or do; students always having to justify where they’re going and why, and do as they’re told; conformist pupils are rewarded with higher grades than those who challenge authority or think creatively ( pg. 346). Bowles and Gintis thus, argue the hidden curriculum serves and benefits capitalist interests (Holborn. Pg. 8) whereas Functionalists argue however, it’s a positive way for students to learn societies norms and values.

Bowles and Gintis see the functionalist idea of meritocracy as a myth, arguing people are conned into believing their achievement is entirely based on merit, they reverse the Meritocratic idea that hard work in education leads to success, instead they argue people are sold the lie that equal opportunity exists and