functionalist and new right explanations of the role education system in relation to...
Social solidarity - Durkheim (functionalist)
Consumer choice - Chubb and Moe (New Right)
Meritocracy - Parson (functionalist)
Selection and role allocation - Davis and Moore (functionalist)
Durkheim argues that society needs more of a sense of solidarity and that individuals must feel themselves to be part of a community
without social solidarity, cooperation would be impossible because each individual would just be out to achieve their own selfish desires
the education system helps create social solidarity by transmitting society's shared beliefs and values
school acts as a 'mini society' preparing students for life in wider society
learning to socialise, cooperate and interact with others whilst upholding moral values
draws on Durkheim ideas about school being a society in itself
Parsons sees school as the 'focal socialising agency', basically meaning that the socialisation they experience at school sets them up for life
schools judge a person based on how hard they work and the grades they achieve
they are also all judged against the same standard
like in society, a persons status is largely achieved, not ascribed.
parsons sees school as preparing us to move from the family to wider society because school and society are based on meritocratic principles
they focus on the relationship between education and social inequality
they argue that inequality is necessary to ensure that the most important roles in society are filled by the most talented people
not everyone is equally talented, so the people with talents (such as pilots) get paid higher amounts
schools are where people can show what they can do
it sorts us based on what we can and can't do
the most able gain the highest qualifications, which gives them entry to the most important and highly rewarded positions
they argue that state-run education in the US has failed because:
- it is inefficient because it fails to produce pupils with the skills needed by the economy
- private schools deliver higher quality education because they are answerable to paying the consumers - the parents
- it has not created equal opportunity and has failed the needs of disadvantaged groups
based their arguments on a comparison of the achievements of pupils from low income families in state and private high schools
found that pupils from low income backgrounds do 5% better in prove schools than in state schools
based off these findings, Chubb and Moe call for an introduction of a market system in state education that would put control in the consumers hands (parents)
parentocracy
to introduce a market into state education, they would create a system where each family would be given a voucher to spend on buying education from a school of their choice
this would force schools to be more responsive to parents wishes and more effectively help the students
like private businesses, schools would have to compete for consumers