Theoretical Perspectives Analysis Essay Example

English students are required to study it until they reach 16 years old, primarily as a result of the significant demand for technologically savvy personnel in the industry during the 21st century.The Education Reform Act granted the government the power to determine the qualifications individuals obtain after finishing secondary education. Consequently, if there is a need for more proficient individuals in computer usage, ICT becomes mandatory. However, if more tradesmen are necessary, then woodwork or resistant materials become compulsory. Although this approach has many benefits, such as fulfilling labour shortages, it poses a disadvantage by allowing workplaces to pay lower wages since many individuals leave school with the same qualifications. This discourages employees from raising questions regarding their salary since they may risk losing their jobs due to similarly skilled workers being readily available to replace them. Therefore, this approach may lead to higher unemployment rates whilst also forcing dissatisfied workers to accept their working conditions.

Despite its positive effects on improving livelihoods, education naturally creates competition. State education has been available to all for free since 1880. However, Bowles and Gintis suggest that even though education is open to all, children from wealthy and powerful families tend to obtain better qualifications and more rewarding jobs than their less privileged peers, regardless of ability (as cited by Haralambos et al., 2008: 604). According to Bowles and Gintis, this inequality is masked by the myth of meritocracy in the education system. If a person from a lower social class fails or underachieves, they are more likely to blame themselves rather than recognize systemic inequalities. Marx argued that schools instill false consciousness in students, leading them to believe

that their outcomes depend on personal choices rather than social background.

According to Bowles and Gintis, IQ only plays a small role in educational success and the relationship between IQ and social status in later life is minimal. They found that class of origin is a significant factor in how long someone stays in education and the qualifications they receive. Those from a higher social class tend to stay in education longer and achieve higher qualifications. They also discovered that within a group of people with similar above average IQs, there were those in both poorly paid and highly paid occupations, but the latter came from more respectable families, indicating that meritocracy does not exist within the educational system. This study supports Bowles and Gintis' argument that someone's fate may be predetermined by the financial characteristics they inherited. (1976, cited by Haralambos et al. 2008: 604) While some Marxists, such as Giroux, have criticized Bowles and Gintis' views, they still operate within a Marxist framework when discussing education.

According to Giroux, working-class students are not passive recipients of education and may challenge instructions as to why they should comply. This can lead to resistance towards the educational system. Giroux views schools as arenas where students from diverse backgrounds attempt to influence educational content and processes. The nature of education is not solely determined by capitalist societal needs but also influenced by ongoing struggles among various groups, much like in wider society (Giroux, 1984 cited by Haralambos et al., 2008). In contrast, functionalists believe that education serves two functions: promoting social solidarity through competition, individualism, and equal opportunities, and imparting specialized skills (Haralambos et al., 2008).

Emile Durkheim, a

French sociologist, emphasized the importance of literacy and numeracy in enabling students. According to him, these two functions are critical for the survival of society. Durkheim contended that individuals must feel like they belong to a single community and be able to relate to others in order for social life and cooperation to exist. He argued that teaching children about their country's history will instill a sense of shared heritage and commitment to a wider social group. Moreover, he believed that school serves as a miniature society where children can develop crucial social skills such as negotiation, interaction, and respect for authority necessary for later survival (Durkheim, 1903 cited by Webb et al., 2008).

According to Durkheim, schools teach important skills that enable us to work cooperatively with others. In modern factories, for instance, producing a single item requires the collaboration of many specialists. The person in charge of making the car door must rely on the person who shaped the car's outer body to do so without negatively impacting those further down the assembly line. Talcott Parsons, an American sociologist, developed the most notable functionalist theory that schools have become the primary socializing agency. Schools bridge the gap between the family and society and prepare children for their future roles as adults. At home, parents tend to judge and treat their children based on personal rather than universal standards.

At birth, a child is given an ascribed status within the family, which will assign different responsibilities and rights based on gender and age. Contrastingly, schools base a status on merit rather than ascription, where passing or failing will influence one's judgement by others within the school.

Schools also uphold universal standards, with each pupil judged by the same set of standards, such as a common exam and pass mark (Webb et al., 1961).

In 2008, Functionalists believed that schools prepare individuals to transition from the family unit to society at large. This is because both school and society operate on meritocracy principles, providing equal opportunities for all and rewarding individuals based on their own abilities and efforts. However, Marxists contradict this view, claiming that meritocracy is a false ideal. In his renowned study conducted in 1977, Paul Willis critiqued both schools of thought, noting their deterministic nature which implies that events are predetermined by previous causes. Marxism contends that a child's adult life outcome depends on their inherited social class, predetermined by their family. Nonetheless, according to Willis, both theories disregard pupils who refuse to conform to these pre-set processes. Willis identified two contrasting subcultures within schools: the pro-school 'earoles' who diligently followed instructions from teachers, and the anti-school 'lads' who disregarded instructions and instead saw school as a source of entertainment among friends.

According to Willis, the development of strategies by the 'lads' to ignore the teacher and have fun was a way of coping with the tedious and repetitive jobs they would eventually have to do. He argued that although they were rebelling, the school system was producing the type of workforce that was necessary for capitalism - one that was uncritical and compliant. The significance of social class in education is a valid argument, as evidenced by schools soliciting 'donations' from parents to maintain their upkeep or reputation. Functionalism also presents valid points, as a child's academic success in state

schools is entirely dependent on their application towards their studies. However, Willis criticized both perspectives and faced questions regarding his study's limited sample size of only 12 male pupils who were not representative of the school's student body. Additionally, there were concerns over the students who were neither fully conformist nor anti-school.

The validity of Bowles and Gintis' studies in modern Britain - where jobs for unskilled employees are scarcer - has been questioned. Additionally, the studies lack contemporary validity because compulsory education was already in place long before they were conducted. Critics have also raised doubts about the relevance of the studies in an era where teamwork skills are paramount, unlike the bureaucratic control focus that was prevalent when the studies were conducted. It is worth noting, however, that competitive exams for promotions do discourage teamwork. While Marxism and Functionalism have often been criticized for being institution-focused, rather than placing enough emphasis on individual experiences in the classroom (including those of students and teachers).

Parsons faced criticism for failing to consider the possibility that the values taught in the education system may represent only the views of a ruling minority, rather than those of society as a whole. His meritocracy beliefs exclude classroom inequality, despite research by Pierre Bourdieu(1974) which indicates that working-class children may be more motivated in school and driven to achieve higher goals than middle-class children who require less personal achievement to maintain their social status.