Consensus and Conflict Theories of Education

Consensus and Conflict Theories of EducationWhat argon the principal differences between consensus and negate surfacees to the sociological analysis of command?The sociological study of direction focuses upon the effects that social institutions and individual characters fetch upon the rearing body. Education is often seen as positive social practice which thrives to get wind personal skills and talents, and subsequently build upon them. Consensus social theorists support this overture with geomorphologic functionalism claiming knowledge to have many positive functions. Education is necessity to confirm the modern workforce. This visual sense, however, is not universal with Marxists taking a contradictory view that education works to reproduce social inequalities, therefore providing negative functions for purchase order. This contrast approach claims that the education system does not promote equality simply alternatively transmits capitalist norms and cherishs, b enefitting the ruling correct and leaving the on the job(p) division at a disadvantage.One of the main purposes of education, according to the consensus approach of functionalism, is that of socialization. This is set forth by Bilton (1996 12) as the process done which individuals learn the ways of perspective and behaviour considered appropriate in nightclub. Primary socialization is administered in testiclely by the family. This process is then continued with the provision of a more formal style of supplementary socialization by different institutions within society. agree to Durkheim (1925) and Parsons (1959), two key consensus theorists, education plays an essential role in this secondary socialization, albeit in different ways, by performing functions that the family is unable to. This is done through the teaching of specific skills for specialised occupations, unless also, possibly more importantly in Durkheims eyes, through the socialization of the common norms and values of society. The teaching of religious and historical beliefs helps to create a child with a sense of identicalness within the community. Fulcher and Scott (2007 321) feel it was, however, the even offeous opinion of the secondary socialization provided by the education system that concerned Durkheim the most. Through discipline within school, children argon taught chastely acceptable behaviour. However, rather than simply being forced to obey, it is essential that they argon made to understand and appreciate the moral code of wider society, causation them to go on to choose to behave in a moral way. Hargreaves (1982) commented on the idea that the education system should promote social solidarity, the innovation of providing pupils with a sense of community. Aspects of school, such(prenominal) as all wearing the similar uniform and participating in group charity or light events help to provide pupils with a sense of belonging within the school, but also provide links with the wider community, and society as a whole. The moral significance of education is also recognised by Parsons however it is the value of individual achievement which he focuses upon. This sense of achievement was the central aspect to a functioning industrial society in mid-twentieth-century America, where Parsons was studying. Although their approaches differed, both Durkheim and Parsons cogitate upon the positive functions of education for society.Another key concept in the consensus approach to the sociological study of education is that of meritocracy. That is the idea, endorsed by Parsons, of a social system in which rewards are gained for individual hard work, talent and ability. In such a situation, people would be rewarded for their effort, and not on the basis of other characteristics such as age, gender, ethnicity, relegate. Thus giving all children within the education system an equal opportunity to succeed. An example of an attempt to create a meritocratic school system is that of the tripartite system put in place by the 1944 Butler Act. By the creation of Grammar, secondhand and Secondary Technical schools the government was recognising the need for equality of opportunities, and therefore attempting to suit the abilities of children to right type of schooling. It also provided free education for all children between the ages of 5 and 15, regardless of their class background, emphasising this attempt to create equal opportunity. This system has been criticised, however, as even though it did mean that the 11+ was open to all, the test itself was verbalize to be written in middle class language, therefore sum that the working(a) class were still left at a disadvantage. This conduct to it being said that the system was actually leaning towards Marxism, rather than functionalist ideas, as it appeared to reproduce social class inequalities.On the other hand, the conflict approach of Marxism opposes the view that we should assume th at the education system serves to meet the demand of society as an entirety. Within society there is a significant conflict of interests, and therefore needs, between capital and labour. This demonstrates a capitalist society in which the ruling class owns the means of production, bringing them power over the working class. We should therefore, according to Marxists, not view education as group meeting the needs of society as w hole, but instead as meeting the needs of the bourgeoisie. In order to maintain a state of assumed class consciousness, capitalism requires a workforce that is obedient, passive and motivated who are prepared to work hard at the benefit of the ruling class without question. According to Bowles and Gintis, the education system was the main means used by capitalism to produce such workers. The correspondence principle (1976 131) claims that what working class students are taught in schools mirrors that of what goes in the workplace. The qualities that the wo rkforce are required to have are taught to students in schools. This is done through the plan and the hidden programme (Illich, 1973 in Fulcher and Scott, 2007). Aside from the formal curriculum, the subjects which provide students with academic know directge, vocational skills and qualifications, Illich identify a hidden curriculum. This hidden curriculum teaches pupils patterns of behaviour such as punctuality, meeting deadlines and accepting authority. The working class are unaware of this subterranean curriculum that is being imposed upon them. Along with the acceptance of hierarchy, the hidden curriculum also leads the working class to believe that they are part of a meritocratic society in they will gain the rewards for working hard. indeed meaning that they will accommodate in the hope of long name gratification, however it is just another way for the ruling class to delay them passive. It is also helps to justify inequality, as the working class are led to believe tha t everyone is equal, however, in reality the middle class are receiving more encouragement. Another way in which the correspondence theory works is by connecting levels reached within the education system to that of occupational levels (Fulcher and Scott 327). When in the lower levels of the education system, obedience is emphasized, as it is in low-level occupations. This pattern continued with modal(a) levels in education when more independent work is encouraged. Once a student reaches higher education they are expected to be both self-motivated and self-disciplines, essentially a completely independent worker, just as those in senior levels of occupation. Therefore, the level a student reaches in education determines the occupational level they will stay at. This is another way in which education reproduces social inequalities.Bowles and Gintis, like the Marxist perspective in general, have however been criticised for being too deterministic. It is too presumptuous to claim that everyone is going to conform to the rules and remain passive. The education system, also, could not produce complete conformity of the working class without the support of the family.As can be seen there are a number of differences and varying ideas between the consensus and conflict approaches to the sociology of education, however they are all based on the idea that functionalism (a consensus approach) identifies education as providing society with positive functions, however the conflict approach recognises the education system as a negative body which reproduces social inequalities and is detrimental to the masses. Where functionalism sees education as meeting the needs of society as a whole, capitalism instead claims for it to serve the needs of the ruling class and ignore those of the rest of society.ReferencesBanks, O. 1978. The Sociology of Education. capital of the United Kingdom Batsford.Barton, L. And Walker, S. 2007. Sociological perspectives and the study of education. In Meighan, R. and Harber, C. A Sociology of Educating. (Fifth Edition), capital of the United Kingdom Continuum. pp. 282-298.Bilton, T. et al. 1996. Introduction to Sociology. (Third edition), London Palgrave Macmillan.Bowles, S. and Gintis, H. 1976. Schooling in Capitalist America educational reform and the contradictions of economic life. London Routledge and Kegan Paul.Fulcher, J. and Scott, J. 2007. Sociology. (Third Edition), New York Oxford University Press.Trowler, P. 2003. Education Policy. (Second Edition), London Routledge.