sociology essay on education

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

16.2 Sociological Perspectives on Education

Learning objectives.

• List the major functions of education.
• Explain the problems that conflict theory sees in education.
• Describe how symbolic interactionism understands education.

The major sociological perspectives on education fall nicely into the functional, conflict, and symbolic interactionist approaches (Ballantine & Hammack, 2009). Table 16.1 “Theory Snapshot” summarizes what these approaches say.

Table 16.1 Theory Snapshot

The Functions of Education

Functional theory stresses the functions that education serves in fulfilling a society’s various needs. Perhaps the most important function of education is socialization . If children need to learn the norms, values, and skills they need to function in society, then education is a primary vehicle for such learning. Schools teach the three Rs, as we all know, but they also teach many of the society’s norms and values. In the United States, these norms and values include respect for authority, patriotism (remember the Pledge of Allegiance?), punctuality, individualism, and competition. Regarding these last two values, American students from an early age compete as individuals over grades and other rewards. The situation is quite the opposite in Japan, where, as we saw in Chapter 4 “Socialization” , children learn the traditional Japanese values of harmony and group belonging from their schooling (Schneider & Silverman, 2010). They learn to value their membership in their homeroom, or kumi , and are evaluated more on their kumi ’s performance than on their own individual performance. How well a Japanese child’s kumi does is more important than how well the child does as an individual.

A second function of education is social integration . For a society to work, functionalists say, people must subscribe to a common set of beliefs and values. As we saw, the development of such common views was a goal of the system of free, compulsory education that developed in the 19th century. Thousands of immigrant children in the United States today are learning English, U.S. history, and other subjects that help prepare them for the workforce and integrate them into American life. Such integration is a major goal of the English-only movement, whose advocates say that only English should be used to teach children whose native tongue is Spanish, Vietnamese, or whatever other language their parents speak at home. Critics of this movement say it slows down these children’s education and weakens their ethnic identity (Schildkraut, 2005).

A third function of education is social placement . Beginning in grade school, students are identified by teachers and other school officials either as bright and motivated or as less bright and even educationally challenged. Depending on how they are identified, children are taught at the level that is thought to suit them best. In this way they are prepared in the most appropriate way possible for their later station in life. Whether this process works as well as it should is an important issue, and we explore it further when we discuss school tracking shortly.

Social and cultural innovation is a fourth function of education. Our scientists cannot make important scientific discoveries and our artists and thinkers cannot come up with great works of art, poetry, and prose unless they have first been educated in the many subjects they need to know for their chosen path.

Figure 16.1 The Functions of Education

Schools ideally perform many important functions in modern society. These include socialization, social integration, social placement, and social and cultural innovation.

Education also involves several latent functions, functions that are by-products of going to school and receiving an education rather than a direct effect of the education itself. One of these is child care . Once a child starts kindergarten and then first grade, for several hours a day the child is taken care of for free. The establishment of peer relationships is another latent function of schooling. Most of us met many of our friends while we were in school at whatever grade level, and some of those friendships endure the rest of our lives. A final latent function of education is that it keeps millions of high school students out of the full-time labor force . This fact keeps the unemployment rate lower than it would be if they were in the labor force.

Education and Inequality

Conflict theory does not dispute most of the functions just described. However, it does give some of them a different slant and talks about various ways in which education perpetuates social inequality (Hill, Macrine, & Gabbard, 2010; Liston, 1990). One example involves the function of social placement. As most schools track their students starting in grade school, the students thought by their teachers to be bright are placed in the faster tracks (especially in reading and arithmetic), while the slower students are placed in the slower tracks; in high school, three common tracks are the college track, vocational track, and general track.

Such tracking does have its advantages; it helps ensure that bright students learn as much as their abilities allow them, and it helps ensure that slower students are not taught over their heads. But, conflict theorists say, tracking also helps perpetuate social inequality by locking students into faster and lower tracks. Worse yet, several studies show that students’ social class and race and ethnicity affect the track into which they are placed, even though their intellectual abilities and potential should be the only things that matter: white, middle-class students are more likely to be tracked “up,” while poorer students and students of color are more likely to be tracked “down.” Once they are tracked, students learn more if they are tracked up and less if they are tracked down. The latter tend to lose self-esteem and begin to think they have little academic ability and thus do worse in school because they were tracked down. In this way, tracking is thought to be good for those tracked up and bad for those tracked down. Conflict theorists thus say that tracking perpetuates social inequality based on social class and race and ethnicity (Ansalone, 2006; Oakes, 2005).

Social inequality is also perpetuated through the widespread use of standardized tests. Critics say these tests continue to be culturally biased, as they include questions whose answers are most likely to be known by white, middle-class students, whose backgrounds have afforded them various experiences that help them answer the questions. They also say that scores on standardized tests reflect students’ socioeconomic status and experiences in addition to their academic abilities. To the extent this critique is true, standardized tests perpetuate social inequality (Grodsky, Warren, & Felts, 2008).

As we will see, schools in the United States also differ mightily in their resources, learning conditions, and other aspects, all of which affect how much students can learn in them. Simply put, schools are unequal, and their very inequality helps perpetuate inequality in the larger society. Children going to the worst schools in urban areas face many more obstacles to their learning than those going to well-funded schools in suburban areas. Their lack of learning helps ensure they remain trapped in poverty and its related problems.

Conflict theorists also say that schooling teaches a hidden curriculum , by which they mean a set of values and beliefs that support the status quo, including the existing social hierarchy (Booher-Jennings, 2008) (see Chapter 4 “Socialization” ). Although no one plots this behind closed doors, our schoolchildren learn patriotic values and respect for authority from the books they read and from various classroom activities.

Symbolic Interactionism and School Behavior

Symbolic interactionist studies of education examine social interaction in the classroom, on the playground, and in other school venues. These studies help us understand what happens in the schools themselves, but they also help us understand how what occurs in school is relevant for the larger society. Some studies, for example, show how children’s playground activities reinforce gender-role socialization. Girls tend to play more cooperative games, while boys play more competitive sports (Thorne, 1993) (see Chapter 11 “Gender and Gender Inequality” ).

Another body of research shows that teachers’ views about students can affect how much the students learn. When teachers think students are smart, they tend to spend more time with them, to call on them, and to praise them when they give the right answer. Not surprisingly these students learn more because of their teachers’ behavior. But when teachers think students are less bright, they tend to spend less time with them and act in a way that leads the students to learn less. One of the first studies to find this example of a self-fulfilling prophecy was conducted by Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson (1968). They tested a group of students at the beginning of the school year and told their teachers which students were bright and which were not. They tested the students again at the end of the school year; not surprisingly the bright students had learned more during the year than the less bright ones. But it turned out that the researchers had randomly decided which students would be designated bright and less bright. Because the “bright” students learned more during the school year without actually being brighter at the beginning, their teachers’ behavior must have been the reason. In fact, their teachers did spend more time with them and praised them more often than was true for the “less bright” students. To the extent this type of self-fulfilling prophecy occurs, it helps us understand why tracking is bad for the students tracked down.

Research guided by the symbolic interactionist perspective suggests that teachers’ expectations may influence how much their students learn. When teachers expect little of their students, their students tend to learn less.

ijiwaru jimbo – Pre-school colour pack – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Other research focuses on how teachers treat girls and boys. Several studies from the 1970s through the 1990s found that teachers call on boys more often and praise them more often (American Association of University Women Educational Foundation, 1998; Jones & Dindia, 2004). Teachers did not do this consciously, but their behavior nonetheless sent an implicit message to girls that math and science are not for girls and that they are not suited to do well in these subjects. This body of research stimulated efforts to educate teachers about the ways in which they may unwittingly send these messages and about strategies they could use to promote greater interest and achievement by girls in math and science (Battey, Kafai, Nixon, & Kao, 2007).

Key Takeaways

• According to the functional perspective, education helps socialize children and prepare them for their eventual entrance into the larger society as adults.
• The conflict perspective emphasizes that education reinforces inequality in the larger society.
• The symbolic interactionist perspective focuses on social interaction in the classroom, on school playgrounds, and at other school-related venues. Social interaction contributes to gender-role socialization, and teachers’ expectations may affect their students’ performance.

For Your Review

• Review how the functionalist, conflict, and symbolic interactionist perspectives understand and explain education. Which of these three approaches do you most prefer? Why?

American Association of University Women Educational Foundation. (1998). Gender gaps: Where schools still fail our children . Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.

Ansalone, G. (2006). Tracking: A return to Jim Crow. Race, Gender & Class, 13 , 1–2.

Ballantine, J. H., & Hammack, F. M. (2009). The sociology of education: A systematic analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Battey, D., Kafai, Y., Nixon, A. S., & Kao, L. L. (2007). Professional development for teachers on gender equity in the sciences: Initiating the conversation. Teachers College Record, 109 (1), 221–243.

Booher-Jennings, J. (2008). Learning to label: Socialisation, gender, and the hidden curriculum of high-stakes testing. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29 , 149–160.

Grodsky, E., Warren, J. R., & Felts, E. (2008). Testing and social stratification in American education. Annual Review of Sociology, 34 (1), 385–404.

Hill, D., Macrine, S., & Gabbard, D. (Eds.). (2010). Capitalist education: Globalisation and the politics of inequality . New York, NY: Routledge; Liston, D. P. (1990). Capitalist schools: Explanation and ethics in radical studies of schooling . New York, NY: Routledge.

Jones, S. M., & Dindia, K. (2004). A meta-analystic perspective on sex equity in the classroom. Review of Educational Research, 74 , 443–471.

Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom . New York, NY: Holt.

Schildkraut, D. J. (2005). Press “one” for English: Language policy, public opinion, and American identity . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Schneider, L., & Silverman, A. (2010). Global sociology: Introducing five contemporary societies (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Thorne, B. (1993). Gender play: Girls and boys in school . New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Sociology Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

The ‘new sociology of education’, then and now: looking back to the 1970s and ahead to today

• Point and counterpoint
• Open access
• Published: 03 October 2023
• Volume 43 , pages 183–186, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Julie McLeod   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4083-8700 1  

1139 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

It is 50 years since the work characterized as the ‘new sociology of education’ gained prominence. It constituted a body of writing and self-consciously new ways of theorizing the relationship between schooling, knowledge, power, ideology and inequality. While grounded in specific intellectual histories and locations, and closely aligned with sociological traditions emanating from the UK and north-western Europe, it became influential across many parts of the world. It spawned a body of work that provoked debates, disputes and new lines of inquiry, many of which continue to reverberate across sociological studies of education today. The essays in this Point and Counterpoint revisit these well-known ideas and discussions. exploring diverse points of connection and contrast, as well as pointing to some new directions for sociology of education today.

In broad terms, the 1970s’ new sociology of education was interested in how education, and particularly schooling, far from ameliorating social divisions, worked to reproduce existing social inequalities. Studies were more likely to be qualitative (in contrast to the previous dominance of quantitative studies) and draw from interpretive and critical traditions, often infused with a radical and disruptive knowledge politics: the language of reproduction and resistance, of disadvantage and democratic, permeated the sociological air. Topics of interest included educational experiences and processes, micro and informal practices, such as the ‘hidden curriculum’, and the relationship of schooling to popular culture, to class and to work and life beyond the classroom walls.

A key focus was the construction, organization and differential valuation of school knowledge—including advocacy for organic, local and participatory curriculum, critiques of the structure of curriculum and its class-based assumptions and effects, and the relationship between knowledge, power and schooling. Signature texts commonly associated with this period include M. F. D. Young ( 1971 ) Knowledge and Control: New Directions for the Sociology of Education ; Bowles and Gintis ( 1976 ) Schooling in Capitalist America ; Bourdieu and Passeron ( 1977 ) Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture ; Apple ( 1979 ) Ideology and Curriculum , Bernstein ( 1975 ) Class Codes and Control ; David ( 1980 ) The State, the Family and Education ; and Dale et al. ( 1976 ) Schooling and Capitalism: A Sociological Reader .

One of the leading figures in this work, Michael F. D. Young, succinctly described an epistemological position that was shared across a broad range of scholarship at this time; that is, a shift to turn the seemingly taken-for-granted aspects of education into ‘objects of inquiry’. This involved, for example, taking ‘what counts as educational knowledge, and how it is made available’ as problematic, as a question to be examined, and for these questions and forms of knowledge to ‘become objects of enquiry’ (Young, 1971 , p. 2). The orientation to interrogate and destabilize familiar questions and issues—to undo the social—has many forebears, heirs and distant relatives, from C. Wright Mills, to Foucault, to multiple feminist theorists, among many others. While it would thus be erroneous to see the new sociology of education as the primary instigator of this way of approaching and conducting sociological research, it is nevertheless the case that it had a significant influence on educational research and specifically on studies of school knowledge and curriculum. A major focus of the sociology of education became ‘an enquiry into the social organization of knowledge in educational institutions’ (Young, 1971 , p. 3): the imperative was ‘to make’, not ‘to take’, educational problems.

Such propositions may now seem quite familiar today, arguably operating at the level of truisms or articles of faith, alongside the critiques that subsequently arose about the silences, exclusions and overstatements of this large body of work. Indeed, this work generated a large volume of reflection over the following decades, with multiple assessments of what it was about, what it amounted to and what it failed to address (e.g. Acker, 1981 ; Arnot, 1982 ; Bates, 1980 ; Karabel & Halsey, 1976 ). These waves of intense critical engagement and repudiation not only exposed the new sociology of education’s blind-spots and particular pre-occupations, but they were also intellectually generative, sparking new work in opposition. This was particularly so at the time in relation to feminism and gender (Arnot, 1982 ; David, 1980 ; McRobbie, 1978 ). Other silences and erasures, such as those regarding race and colonialism, were called out later. Yet, somewhat paradoxically, this intensity also helped to cement the new sociology of education as a ‘thing’, a key moment or event in the periodization of histories of educational ideas, with battered copies of M. F. D. Young’s edited volume Knowledge and Control often standing in as an era-defining object.

These and other issues are taken up in the essays that follow. However, before running headlong into the cataloguing of faults and shortcomings, this Point and Counterpoint invites us to pause and to assess this body of sociological work with a slightly different lens and set of concerns. The essays presented here were developed in response to a forum on the ‘new sociology of education’ held at the 2022 conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education. Participants in this forum were invited because of their varied intellectual—and generational—positioning and engagement with theories, authors or projects directly or indirectly in dialogue with ideas linked to the new sociology of education. Footnote 1 Presenters were asked to revisit and historicize the aims and concerns of the new sociology of education, and to give their take on the legacies of this body of work. This could be in terms of their own intellectual formation, research agendas or disputes, adaptations and challenges to this tradition as well as any reflections on the ongoing effects of this oeuvre on the field of sociological research in education, with attention to what might be potential ‘new directions for sociology of education’ today. Specifically, the aims of the forum were to:

reflect on what the new sociology of education of the 1970s–1980s did and did not notice—historicizing its claims and concerns;

consider what its legacies are today, including what is and is not remembered; and

ask what might, does or should constitute the pressing questions, concerns and concepts for a ‘new’ sociology of education for today.

Panellists and audience members responded generously and thoughtfully to these questions, as is evident in the following essays. Responding directly to the invitation to historicize this work, Bob Lingard’s essay zooms in on the context and concerns of the canonical text Knowledge and Control , locating it against dominant sociological trends at the time of its publication and subsequent critiques about what (and who) the expansive claims for a new sociology of education did not consider. He notes debates then and since, including Young’s (e.g. 1998 ; 2005 ) own rethinking of his earlier position and his recasting of the central problematic for sociology of education as not so much one of knowledge and control but of powerful knowledge. Traversing big currents in sociological theorizing, and recognizing the impact and challenge brought to bear by feminist and decolonizing agendas, Lingard also looks ahead to current and emerging lines of sociological inquiry, such as research on the biosocial and on AI and education. Parlo Singh and Henry Kwok turn to consider the contributions of the prominent British sociologist of education Basil Bernstein to the new sociology of education; this is framed as a kind of dialogue between the work of Bernstein and of M. F. D. Young, in reference to their respective (and changing) readings of Durkheim’s writings on education. Singh and Kwok trace the different influences on Bernstein’s thinking about knowledge and curriculum, notably his engagement with Foucault’s writing and his shift to understanding, in their words, ‘the school curriculum as composed of a collection of scientific discourses’. This allowed Bernstein to conceptualize the ‘dynamic nature’ of curriculum and informed his analysis of the structuring of scientific/specialized knowledge, across both intellectual fields and everyday contexts. Reflecting on their own extended engagement with the work of Bernstein, Singh and Kwok consider debates about situated knowledges and objectivity (looking particularly at Indigenous and feminist scholarship) and link these to the knowledge and post-truth debates that emerged sharply in response to COVID measures and, in doing so, call out future directions for curriculum studies.

A related fresh line of thinking is mapped out by Joel Windle who focusses more on the ideas of another iconic figure, Pierre Bourdieu, and on the analytic process of recontexualization. Windle calls for a ‘rescaling’ of the new sociology of education as one way to understand its contributions and limitations, and to ‘draw connections to alternative scales upon which inequalities may be identified’. In some respects, these arguments pick up the above concerns with ‘situated knowledges’ but, for Windle, this is about situating the intellectual agendas and problems of inequality (which were mainly construed in terms of class) addressed by the new sociology of education in a ‘distinctive spatio-temporal nexus’—predominantly, that of north-western Europe in the post war decades. As Windle illustrates, remarkably, this excluded attention to many other, perhaps less visible yet violent forms of inequality, such as anti-colonial struggles. In acknowledging the need to contextualize the conditions of knowledge production shaping the new sociology of education, he further argues for more careful critical attention to how insights from this work travel, land, and are transformed in other spatio-temporal settings. The final essay from Jessica Gerrard and Helen Proctor returns our focus to the contemporaneous reception of the then-new sociological ideas. They attend to the parallel rise of the social science curriculum in 1970s Australia, canvassing conservative responses to these curriculum developments. In doing so, they draw connections between debates about sociological knowledge and the reach of social scientific sensibilities into the school curriculum—a movement that was seen by some to displace the authority of foundational knowledges, such as history. For conservative critics, this signalled much more, including the worrying rise of educational and social progressivism and a feared concurrent retreat from meritocratic principles and educational standards. Highlighting the work of the Australian education historian and commentator Alan Barcan, they tease out some of the complexities of conservative thought during this period. In doing so, they show the value of exploring the intersections and tensions between and across the different domains (e.g. university, schools) in which questions of knowledge formation, curriculum and new sociological thinking are enacted and (re)contextualized.

Together, these essays underline the importance of the new sociology of education as part of the intellectual history of the field of educational research. But, as important, they point to some of the ways which these ideas seeped beyond academia and arcane debates, intersecting with (shaping and being shaped by) a vast range of innovations and experiments in educational practices and curriculum during this same period. In this sense, attending to the new sociology of education also points to directions for a practical and curricular history, for histories of practice and knowledge making in schools during this era. For example, and very briefly: in Australia (as elsewhere), the growth in community, alternative and open schooling during the 1970s points to some of the ways in which the flow of new sociology of education ideas, mixed with de-schooling society and radical democratic projects (e.g. Freire, 1972 ; Illich, 1971 ), formed part of the context shaping the administration and design of schools, the nature of teachers’ work, and curriculum practices, priorities and ambitions (e.g. McLeod & Rosén Rasmussen, 2021 ).

As I was drafting this introductory note, I repeatedly and mistakenly wrote the subtitle for Knowledge and Control as’ new directions in the sociology of education’, as if that collection were documenting and reporting on existing new directions. In fact, the correct subtitle is ‘new directions for the sociology of education’ which, for me at least, evokes a very different tone and ambition; one that is more manifesto-like, self-consciously setting the agenda and marking out its own confident role in that future. A confidence in the authority and purpose of the sociology of education, of its own paradigm-breaking direction, one fundamentally tied to the sociology of knowledge and particular political agendas, is perhaps one of the most striking contrasts with what is arguably a more uncertain, less all-knowing and more situated sociological imagination in education today.

In addition to the authors contributing to this section, I wish to acknowledge the contribution of Dr Eve Mayes (Deakin University) who presented a paper as part of this forum at the AARE 2022 conference.

Acker, S. (1981). No-woman’s-land: British sociology of education 1960–1979. Sociological Review, 29 (1), 77–104.

Article   Google Scholar  

Apple, M. W. (1979). Ideology and curriculum . Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Book   Google Scholar  

Arnot, M. (1982). Male hegemony, social class and women’s education. The Journal of Education, 164 (1), 64–89.

Bates, R. J. (1980). New developments in the new sociology of education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 1 (1), 67–79.

Bernstein, B. (1975). Class, codes and control . Vol. 3 volumes. Routledge & K. Paul, 1975.

Bourdieu, P. & Passeron, J-C. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture . Sage Studies in Social and Educational Change; v. 5. Sage Publications.

Bowles, S. & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and the contradictions of economic life . Basic Books.

Dale, R., Esland, G., & MacDonald, M. (Eds.). (1976). Schooling and capitalism: A sociological reader . Routledge & Kegan Paul for the Open University Press.

Google Scholar  

David, M. (1980). The state, the family, and education . Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed . Translated by M B Ramos. Penguin.

Illich, I. (1971). Deschooling society . Penguin.

Karabel, J., & Halsey, A. H. (1976). The new sociology of education. Theory and Society, 3 (4), 529–552.

McLeod, J., & Rosén Rasmussen, L. (2021). Open-plan schooling and everyday utopias: Australia and Denmark in the 1970s. Oxford Review of Education, 47 (5), 659–680. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2021.1958771

McRobbie, A. (1978). Jackie: An ideology of adolescent femininity . Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, University of Birmingham, April 1978. http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/1808/

Young, M. F. D., (Ed.). (1971). Knowledge and control: New directions for the sociology of education . Collier-Macmillan.

Young, M. F. D. (1998). The curriculum of the future: From the “new sociology of education” to a critical theory of learning . Falmer Press. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unimelb/detail.action?docID=165302#

Young, M. F. D. (2005). Bringing knowledge back in: From social constructivism to social realism in the sociology of education . Routledge. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unimelb/detail.action?docID=198477#goto_toc

Download references

Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Education, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

Julie McLeod

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julie McLeod .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

McLeod, J. The ‘new sociology of education’, then and now: looking back to the 1970s and ahead to today. Curric Perspect 43 , 183–186 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-023-00213-y

Download citation

Published : 03 October 2023

Issue Date : September 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-023-00213-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• School knowledge
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Sociological Perspectives on Education

Learning objectives.

• List the major functions of education.
• Explain the problems that conflict theory sees in education.
• Describe how symbolic interactionism understands education.

The major sociological perspectives on education fall nicely into the functional, conflict, and symbolic interactionist approaches (Ballantine & Hammack, 2009). Table 16.1 “Theory Snapshot” summarizes what these approaches say.

Table 16.1 Theory Snapshot

The Functions of Education

Functional theory stresses the functions that education serves in fulfilling a society’s various needs. Perhaps the most important function of education is socialization . If children need to learn the norms, values, and skills they need to function in society, then education is a primary vehicle for such learning. Schools teach the three Rs, as we all know, but they also teach many of the society’s norms and values, this is known as the hidden curriculum . In the United States, these norms and values include respect for authority, patriotism (remember the Pledge of Allegiance?), punctuality, individualism, and competition. . Regarding these last two values, American students from an early age compete as individuals over grades and other rewards. The situation is quite the opposite in Japan, where, as we saw in Chapter 4 “Socialization” , children learn the traditional Japanese values of harmony and group belonging from their schooling (Schneider & Silverman, 2010). They learn to value their membership in their homeroom, or kumi , and are evaluated more on their kumi ’s performance than on their own individual performance. How well a Japanese child’s kumi does is more important than how well the child does as an individual.

A second function of education is social integration . For a society to work, functionalists say, people must subscribe to a common set of beliefs and values. As we saw, the development of such common views was a goal of the system of free, compulsory education that developed in the 19th century. Thousands of immigrant children in the United States today are learning English, U.S. history, and other subjects that help prepare them for the workforce and integrate them into American life. Such integration is a major goal of the English-only movement, whose advocates say that only English should be used to teach children whose native tongue is Spanish, Vietnamese, or whatever other language their parents speak at home. Critics of this movement say it slows down these children’s education and weakens their ethnic identity (Schildkraut, 2005).

A third function of education is social placement . Beginning in grade school, students are identified by teachers and other school officials either as bright and motivated or as less bright and even educationally challenged. Depending on how they are identified, children are taught at the level that is thought to suit them best. In this way they are prepared in the most appropriate way possible for their later station in life. Whether this process works as well as it should is an important issue, and we explore it further when we discuss school tracking shortly.

Social and cultural innovation is a fourth function of education. Our scientists cannot make important scientific discoveries and our artists and thinkers cannot come up with great works of art, poetry, and prose unless they have first been educated in the many subjects they need to know for their chosen path.

Figure 16.1 The Functions of Education

Schools ideally perform many important functions in modern society. These include socialization, social integration, social placement, and social and cultural innovation.

Education also involves several latent functions, functions that are by-products of going to school and receiving an education rather than a direct effect of the education itself. One of these is child care . Once a child starts kindergarten and then first grade, for several hours a day the child is taken care of for free. The establishment of peer relationships is another latent function of schooling. Most of us met many of our friends while we were in school at whatever grade level, and some of those friendships endure the rest of our lives. A final latent function of education is that it keeps millions of high school students out of the full-time labor force . This fact keeps the unemployment rate lower than it would be if they were in the labor force.

Education and Inequality

Conflict theory does not dispute most of the functions just described. However, it does give some of them a different slant and talks about various ways in which education perpetuates social inequality (Hill, Macrine, & Gabbard, 2010; Liston, 1990). One example involves the function of social placement. As most schools track their students starting in grade school, the students thought by their teachers to be bright are placed in the faster tracks (especially in reading and arithmetic), while the slower students are placed in the slower tracks; in high school, three common tracks are the college track, vocational track, and general track.

Such tracking does have its advantages; it helps ensure that bright students learn as much as their abilities allow them, and it helps ensure that slower students are not taught over their heads. But, conflict theorists say, tracking also helps perpetuate social inequality by locking students into faster and lower tracks. Worse yet, several studies show that students’ social class and race and ethnicity affect the track into which they are placed, even though their intellectual abilities and potential should be the only things that matter: white, middle-class students are more likely to be tracked “up,” while poorer students and students of color are more likely to be tracked “down.” Once they are tracked, students learn more if they are tracked up and less if they are tracked down. The latter tend to lose self-esteem and begin to think they have little academic ability and thus do worse in school because they were tracked down. In this way, tracking is thought to be good for those tracked up and bad for those tracked down. Conflict theorists thus say that tracking perpetuates social inequality based on social class and race and ethnicity (Ansalone, 2006; Oakes, 2005).

Social inequality is also perpetuated through the widespread use of standardized tests. Critics say these tests continue to be culturally biased, as they include questions whose answers are most likely to be known by white, middle-class students, whose backgrounds have afforded them various experiences that help them answer the questions. They also say that scores on standardized tests reflect students’ socioeconomic status and experiences in addition to their academic abilities. To the extent this critique is true, standardized tests perpetuate social inequality (Grodsky, Warren, & Felts, 2008).

As we will see, schools in the United States also differ mightily in their resources, learning conditions, and other aspects, all of which affect how much students can learn in them. Simply put, schools are unequal, and their very inequality helps perpetuate inequality in the larger society. Children going to the worst schools in urban areas face many more obstacles to their learning than those going to well-funded schools in suburban areas. Their lack of learning helps ensure they remain trapped in poverty and its related problems.

Conflict theorists also say that schooling teaches a hidden curriculum , by which they mean a set of values and beliefs that support the status quo, including the existing social hierarchy (Booher-Jennings, 2008) (see Chapter 4 “Socialization” ). Although no one plots this behind closed doors, our schoolchildren learn patriotic values and respect for authority from the books they read and from various classroom activities.

Symbolic Interactionism and School Behavior

Symbolic interactionist studies of education examine social interaction in the classroom, on the playground, and in other school venues. These studies help us understand what happens in the schools themselves, but they also help us understand how what occurs in school is relevant for the larger society. Some studies, for example, show how children’s playground activities reinforce gender-role socialization. Girls tend to play more cooperative games, while boys play more competitive sports (Thorne, 1993) (see Chapter 11 “Gender and Gender Inequality” ).

Another body of research shows that teachers’ views about students can affect how much the students learn, known as the Pygmalion Effect. When teachers think students are smart, they tend to spend more time with them, to call on them, and to praise them when they give the right answer. Not surprisingly these students learn more because of their teachers’ behavior. But when teachers think students are less bright, they tend to spend less time with them and act in a way that leads the students to learn less. One of the first studies to find this example of a self-fulfilling prophecy was conducted by Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson (1968). They tested a group of students at the beginning of the school year and told their teachers which students were bright and which were not. They tested the students again at the end of the school year; not surprisingly the bright students had learned more during the year than the less bright ones. But it turned out that the researchers had randomly decided which students would be designated bright and less bright. Because the “bright” students learned more during the school year without actually being brighter at the beginning, their teachers’ behavior must have been the reason. In fact, their teachers did spend more time with them and praised them more often than was true for the “less bright” students. To the extent this type of self-fulfilling prophecy occurs, it helps us understand why tracking is bad for the students tracked down.

Research guided by the symbolic interactionist perspective suggests that teachers’ expectations may influence how much their students learn. When teachers expect little of their students, their students tend to learn less.

ijiwaru jimbo – Pre-school colour pack – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Other research focuses on how teachers treat girls and boys. Several studies from the 1970s through the 1990s found that teachers call on boys more often and praise them more often (American Association of University Women Educational Foundation, 1998; Jones & Dindia, 2004). Teachers did not do this consciously, but their behavior nonetheless sent an implicit message to girls that math and science are not for girls and that they are not suited to do well in these subjects. This body of research stimulated efforts to educate teachers about the ways in which they may unwittingly send these messages and about strategies they could use to promote greater interest and achievement by girls in math and science (Battey, Kafai, Nixon, & Kao, 2007).

Key Takeaways

• According to the functional perspective, education helps socialize children and prepare them for their eventual entrance into the larger society as adults.
• The conflict perspective emphasizes that education reinforces inequality in the larger society.
• The symbolic interactionist perspective focuses on social interaction in the classroom, on school playgrounds, and at other school-related venues. Social interaction contributes to gender-role socialization, and teachers’ expectations may affect their students’ performance.

American Association of University Women Educational Foundation. (1998). Gender gaps: Where schools still fail our children . Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.

Ansalone, G. (2006). Tracking: A return to Jim Crow. Race, Gender & Class, 13 , 1–2.

Ballantine, J. H., & Hammack, F. M. (2009). The sociology of education: A systematic analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Battey, D., Kafai, Y., Nixon, A. S., & Kao, L. L. (2007). Professional development for teachers on gender equity in the sciences: Initiating the conversation. Teachers College Record, 109 (1), 221–243.

Booher-Jennings, J. (2008). Learning to label: Socialisation, gender, and the hidden curriculum of high-stakes testing. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29 , 149–160.

Grodsky, E., Warren, J. R., & Felts, E. (2008). Testing and social stratification in American education. Annual Review of Sociology, 34 (1), 385–404.

Hill, D., Macrine, S., & Gabbard, D. (Eds.). (2010). Capitalist education: Globalisation and the politics of inequality . New York, NY: Routledge; Liston, D. P. (1990). Capitalist schools: Explanation and ethics in radical studies of schooling . New York, NY: Routledge.

Jones, S. M., & Dindia, K. (2004). A meta-analystic perspective on sex equity in the classroom. Review of Educational Research, 74 , 443–471.

Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom . New York, NY: Holt.

Schildkraut, D. J. (2005). Press “one” for English: Language policy, public opinion, and American identity . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Schneider, L., & Silverman, A. (2010). Global sociology: Introducing five contemporary societies (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Thorne, B. (1993). Gender play: Girls and boys in school . New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Introduction to Sociology: Understanding and Changing the Social World Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

How to Write a Sociological Essay: Explained with Examples

This article will discuss “How to Write a Sociological Essay” with insider pro tips and give you a map that is tried and tested. An essay writing is done in three phases: a) preparing for the essay, b) writing the essay, and c) editing the essay. We will take it step-by-step so that nothing is left behind because the devil, as well as good grades and presentation, lies in the details.

Writing is a skill that we learn throughout the courses of our lives. Learning how to write is a process that we begin as soon as we turn 4, and the learning process never stops. But the question is, “is all writing the same?”. The answer is NO. Do you remember your initial lessons of English when you were in school, and how the teacher taught various formats of writing such as formal, informal, essay, letter, and much more? Therefore, writing is never that simple. Different occasions demand different styles and commands over the writing style. Thus, the art of writing improves with time and experience. 

Those who belong to the world of academia know that writing is something that they cannot escape. No writing is the same when it comes to different disciplines of academia. Similarly, the discipline of sociology demands a particular style of formal academic writing. If you’re a new student of sociology, it can be an overwhelming subject, and writing assignments don’t make the course easier. Having some tips handy can surely help you write and articulate your thoughts better. 

[Let us take a running example throughout the article so that every point becomes crystal clear. Let us assume that the topic we have with us is to “Explore Culinary Discourse among the Indian Diasporic Communities” .]

Phase I: Preparing for the Essay  

Step 1: make an outline.

So you have to write a sociological essay, which means that you already either received or have a topic in mind. The first thing for you to do is PLAN how you will attempt to write this essay. To plan, the best way is to make an outline. The topic you have, certainly string some thread in your mind. They can be instances you heard or read, some assumptions you hold, something you studied in the past, or based on your own experience, etc. Make a rough outline where you note down all the themes you would like to talk about in your essay. The easiest way to make an outline is to make bullet points. List all the thoughts and examples that you have in find and create a flow for your essay. Remember that this is only a rough outline so you can always make changes and reshuffle your points. 

[Explanation through example, assumed topic: “Explore Culinary Discourse among the Indian Diasporic Communities” . Your outline will look something like this:

• Importance of food
• Definition of Diaspora 
• Relationship between food and culture
• Relationship between food and nation
• Relationship between food and media 
• Relationship between food and nostalgia 
• How food travels with people 
• Is food practices different for different sections of society, such as caste, class, gender ]

Step 2: Start Reading 

Once you have prepared an outline for your essay, the next step is to start your RESEARCH . You cannot write a sociological essay out of thin air. The essay needs to be thoroughly researched and based on facts. Sociology is the subject of social science that is based on facts and evidence. Therefore, start reading as soon as you have your outline determined. The more you read, the more factual data you will collect. But the question which now emerges is “what to read” . You cannot do a basic Google search to write an academic essay. Your research has to be narrow and concept-based. For writing a sociological essay, make sure that the sources from where you read are academically acclaimed and accepted.  

Some of the websites that you can use for academic research are: 

• Google Scholar
• Shodhganga 

[Explanation through example, assumed topic: “Explore Culinary Discourse among the Indian Diasporic Communities” . 

For best search, search for your articles by typing “Food+Diaspora”, “Food+Nostalgia”, adding a plus sign (+) improves the search result.]

Step 3: Make Notes 

This is a step that a lot of people miss when they are preparing to write their essays. It is important to read, but how you read is also a very vital part. When you are reading from multiple sources then all that you read becomes a big jumble of information in your mind. It is not possible to remember who said what at all times. Therefore, what you need to do while reading is to maintain an ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY . Whenever you’re reading for writing an academic essay then have a notebook handy, or if you prefer electronic notes then prepare a Word Document, Google Docs, Notes, or any tool of your choice to make notes. 

As you begin reading, note down the title of the article, its author, and the year of publication. As you read, keep writing down all the significant points that you find. You can either copy whole sentences or make shorthand notes, whatever suits you best. Once you’ve read the article and made your notes, write a summary of what you just read in 8 to 10 lines. Also, write keywords, these are the words that are most used in the article and reflect its essence. Having keywords and a summary makes it easier for you to revisit the article. A sociological essay needs a good amount of research, which means that you have to read plenty, thus maintaining an annotated bibliography helps you in the greater picture.  

Annotate and divide your notes based on the outline you made. Having organized notes will help you directly apply the concepts where they are needed rather than you going and searching for them again.] 

Phase II: Write a Sociological Essay

A basic essay includes a title, an introduction, the main body, and a conclusion. A sociological essay is not that different as far as the body of contents goes, but it does include some additional categories. When you write a sociological essay, it should have the following contents and chronology: 

• Subtitle (optional)
• Introduction

Conclusion 

• References/ Bibliography 

Now let us get into the details which go into the writing of a sociological essay.  

Step 4: Writing a Title, Subtitle, Abstract, and Keywords 

The title of any document is the first thing that a reader comes across. Therefore, the title should be provocative, specific, and the most well-thought part of any essay. Your title should reflect what your essay will discuss further. There has to be a sync between the title and the rest of your content. The title should be the biggest font size you use in your essay. 

Pro Tip by Sociology Group: A title preferably should not exceed 5 to 7 words.  

This is an optional component of any essay. If you think that your title cannot justify the rest of the contents of your essay, then you opt for a subtitle. The subtitle is the secondary part of the title which is used to further elucidate the title. A subtitle should be smaller in font than the Title but bigger than the rest of the essay body.  

Pro Tip by Sociology Group: Make the font color of your subtitle Gray instead of Black for it to stand out. 

The abstract is a 6 to 10 line description of what you will talk about in your essay. An abstract is a very substantial component of a sociological essay. Most of the essays written in academia exceed the word limit of 2000 words. Therefore, a writer, i.e., you, provides the reader with a short abstract at the beginning of your essay so that they can know what you are going to discuss. From the point of view of the reader, a good abstract can save time and help determine if the piece is worth reading or not. Thus, make sure to make your abstract as reflective to your essay as possible using the least amount of words.  

Pro Tip by Sociology Group: If you are not sure about your abstract at first, it is always great to write the abstract in the end after you are done with your essay. 

Your abstract should highlight all the points that you will further discuss. Therefore your abstract should mention how diasporic communities are formed and how they are not homogeneous communities. There are differences within this large population. In your essay, you will talk in detail about all the various aspects that affect food and diasporic relationships. ]

Keywords are an extension of your abstract. Whereas in your abstract you will use a paragraph to tell the reader what to expect ahead, by stating keywords, you point out the essence of your essay by using only individual words. These words are mostly concepts of social sciences. At first, glance, looking at your keywords, the reader should get informed about all the concepts and themes you will explain in detail later. 

Pro Tip by Sociology Group: Bold your Keywords so that they get highlighted.

Your keywords could be: Food, Diaspora, Migration, and so on. Build on these as you continue to write your essay.]   

Step 5: Writing the Introduction, Main Body, and Conclusion 

Introduction 

Your introduction should talk about the subject on which you are writing at the broadest level. In an introduction, you make your readers aware of what you are going to argue later in the essay. An introduction can discuss a little about the history of the topic, how it was understood till now, and a framework of what you are going to talk about ahead. You can think of your introduction as an extended form of the abstract. Since it is the first portion of your essay, it should paint a picture where the readers know exactly what’s ahead of them. 

Pro Tip by Sociology Group: An apt introduction can be covered in 2 to 3 paragraphs (Look at the introduction on this article if you need proof). 

Since your focus is on “food” and “diaspora”, your introductory paragraph can dwell into a little history of the relationship between the two and the importance of food in community building.] 

This is the most extensive part of any essay. It is also the one that takes up the most number of words. All the research and note-making which you did was for this part. The main body of your essay is where you put all the knowledge you gathered into words. When you are writing the body, your aim should be to make it flow, which means that all paragraphs should have a connection between them. When read in its entirety, the paragraphs should sing together rather than float all around. 

The main body is mostly around 4 to 6 paragraphs long. A sociological essay is filled with debates, theories, theorists, and examples. When writing the main body it is best to target making one or two paragraphs about the same revolving theme. When you shift to the other theme, it is best to connect it with the theme you discussed in the paragraph right above it to form a connection between the two. If you are dividing your essay into various sub-themes then the best way to correlate them is starting each new subtheme by reflecting on the last main arguments presented in the theme before it. To make a sociological essay even more enriching, include examples that exemplify the theoretical concepts better. 

Pro Tip by Sociology Group: Though there is no word limit to the length of the paragraphs, if you keep one paragraph between 100 to 200 words, it makes the essay look more organized. 

The main body can here be divided into the categories which you formed during the first step of making the rough outline. Therefore, your essay could have 3 to 4 sub-sections discussing different themes such as: Food and Media, Caste and Class influence food practices, Politics of Food, Gendered Lens, etc.] 

This is the section where you end your essay. But ending the essay does not mean that you lose your flair in conclusion. A conclusion is an essential part of any essay because it sums up everything you just wrote. Your conclusion should be similar to a summary of your essay. You can include shortened versions of the various arguments you have referred to above in the main body, or it can raise questions for further research, and it can also provide solutions if your topic seeks one. Hence, a conclusion is a part where you get the last chance to tell your reader what you are saying through your article. 

Pro Tip by Sociology Group: As the introduction, the conclusion is smaller compared to the main body. Keep your conclusion within the range of 1 to 2 paragraphs. 

Your conclusion should again reiterate all the main arguments provided by you throughout the essay. Therefore it should bind together everything you have written starting from your introduction to all the debates and examples you have cited.]

Step 6: Citation and Referencing 

This is the most academic part of your sociological essay. Any academic essay should be free of plagiarism. But how can one avoid plagiarism when their essay is based on research which was originally done by others. The solution for this is to give credit to the original author for their work. In the world of academia, this is done through the processes of Citation and Referencing (sometimes also called Bibliography). Citation is done within/in-between the text, where you directly or indirectly quote the original text. Whereas, Referencing or Bibliography is done at the end of an essay where you give resources of the books or articles which you have quoted in your essay at various points. Both these processes are done so that the reader can search beyond your essay to get a better grasp of the topic. 

There are many different styles of citations and you can determine which you want to follow. Some of the most common styles of citation and referencing are MLA, APA, and Chicago style. If you are working on Google Docs or Word then the application makes your work easier because they help you curate your citations. There are also various online tools that can make citing references far easier, faster, and adhering to citation guidelines, such as an APA generator. This can save you a lot of time when it comes to referencing, and makes the task far more manageable. 

How to add citations in Google Doc: Tools → Citation

How to add citations in Word Document: References → Insert Citations 

But for those who want to cite manually, this is the basic format to follow:

• Author’s Name with Surname mentioned first, then initials 
• Article’s Title in single or double quotes
• Journal Title in Italics 
• Volume, issue number 
• Year of Publication

Example: Syrkin, A. 1984. “Notes on the Buddha’s Threats in the Dīgha Nikāya ”, Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies , vol. 7(1), pp.147-58.

Pro Tip by Sociology Group: Always make sure that your Bibliography/References are alphabetically ordered based on the first alphabet of the surname of the author and NOT numbered or bulleted. 

Phase III: Editing 

Step 7: edit/review your essay.

The truth of academic writing is that it can never be written in one go. You need to write, rewrite, and revisit your material more than once. Once you have written the first draft of your essay, do not revise it immediately. Leave it for some time, at least for four hours. Then revisit your essay and edit it based on 3 criteria. The first criteria you need to recheck for is any grammatical and/or spelling mistakes. The second criteria are to check the arguments you have posed and if the examples you have cited correlate or not. The final criteria are to read the essay as a reader and read it objectively. 

Pro Tip by Sociology Group: The more you edit the better results you get. But we think that your 3rd draft is the magic draft. Draft 1: rough essay, Draft 2: edited essay, Draft 3: final essay.

Hello! Eiti is a budding sociologist whose passion lies in reading, researching, and writing. She thrives on coffee, to-do lists, deadlines, and organization. Eiti's primary interest areas encompass food, gender, and academia.

The Sociology Teacher

The 'nutshells' provide concentrated summaries. Use the arrows or swipe across to explore topics in more detail, including key perspectives  and sociologists .

Want a more engaging way of revising key terms and sociologists? Download our revision app from the App Store!

Topic 1 - Class Differences in Achievement (External Factors)

In a nutshell

Some sociologists believe that working class underachievement is due to factors outside the school. Such factors include material deprivation (the inability to afford basic resources, such as adequate housing, food and heating) and cultural deprivation (deficiencies in home and family backgrounds, such as inadequate socialisation, inadequate language skills and inappropriate attitudes/values). In addition, cultural capital (Knowledge, language, attitudes and values , and lifestyle) gives the middle-class an inbuilt advantage in a middle-class controlled education system.

Topic 2 - Class Differences in Achievement (Internal  Factors)

Some sociologists believe working class underachievement is the product of factors inside the school environment that hinder a pupils ability to achieve. These factors include: labelling, streaming, pupil subcultures, pupil identities and the development of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Topic 3 - ETHNIC Differences in Achievement

Trends in statistics have shown Chinese pupils to achieve the best in education, whereas black Caribbean and Gypsy Roma pupils have fallen behind. Some sociologists identify ethnic differences in achievement as the result of factors outside the school, such as language skills, family structure, attitudes and values, and material deprivation - which place minority ethnic groups at a disadvantage. However, some sociologists argue ethnic differences occur through factors inside the school environment - notably, the ethnocentric curriculum, labelling, pupil subcultures and institutional racism.

Topic 4 - GENDER Differences in Achievement

In recent years, statistics have shown that girls now outperform boys in educational attainment. Sociologists suggest the increased achievement in girls educational performance is the result of external factors (girls changing ambitions, changes in the family, changes in women's employment) and internal factors (equal opportunities, teacher attention, coursework). In reverse, they also suggest reasons for boys underachievement - notably, the feminisation of schooling, the decline in manual labour, and ‘laddish’ subcultures. Sociologists also suggest reasons for the difference in gender subject choices and reflect on gendered identities.

topic 5 - the role of education

Functionalists value education in the respect that it provides necessary functions for the rest of society. Similarly, the New Right determine in order to fulfil such functions, schools should be centred around the consumer and their choices. However, Marxists criticise both Functionalists and the New Right in arguing the education system merely serves the needs of capitalism, by ensuring the failure of working-class pupils. Feminists also reject the education system for producing gender inequalities.

topic 6 - educational policy

Educational policy has had a profound impact on society. There has been a shift in policy from the 1940’s where the tripartite system existed, legitimising inequality in education, to the new system of comprehensive schooling introduced in 1965. Although the New Labour policies sought to reduce inequality, the conservative policies have reintroduced a system of inequality by encouraging privatisation and marketisation.

ReviseSociology

A level sociology revision – education, families, research methods, crime and deviance and more!

Tag: 30 mark questions

Applying material from item b and your knowledge, evaluate sociological explanations of the role of education in transmitting ideas and values..

How to top mark band in a 30 mark education essay, A-level sociology, AQA.

Below is an example of a 30 mark essay question which achieved 28/30.

It’s an interesting example of a question which looks like its asking you to evaluate a specific aspect of the Functionalist perspective on education . However, if you look more closely at the item, you’ll need to do this by drawing on Feminism and Postmodernism to evaluate!

The example is taken from the 2017 Education with Theory and Methods Paper (paper and mark schemes available from the AQA 0website ) and the specific question is as follows:

The Question with Item 

Mark Scheme (Top Band Only)

Student Response (paraphrased by KT)

Item B states that education plays a role in socialisation. Feminists argue that education reinforces hegemonic masculinity. However, other sociologists such as Functionalists argue that education transmits shared values and post-modernists for example argue that education is diverse and transmits a range of values.

Feminists suggest that education transmits patriarchal ideology. Radical Feminists would say that male teachers/ pupils behave in ways that reinforce hegemonic masculinity. For example, male teachers tell boys off for ‘behaving like girls’ and they also ‘rescue’ female teachers when they are disciplining students. Radical feminists say that this makes females feel inferior to males and therefor means that the role of education is to reinforce the idea that males are the dominant gender. However, a specific evaluation is that the male teachers may rescue female teachers because they are in a more authoritative position. Additionally, post-modernists would disagree with feminists and argue that education is no longer based on inequality, but based on diversity.

Functionalists suggest that education transmits shared values. Durkheim argues that the role of education is to create social solidarity and value consensus. He argues that education achieves this via assemblies, teaching a common history (giving a sense of national identity and bring people together) and teaching core values such as respect which bring social order. Parsons agrees and argues that education is the focal socialising agency and ‘Parsons bridge implies that education takes people from particularistic values of the family/ home to universalistic values of the work place. The New right agree with functionalists that the role of education is to transmit shared values. However, Marxists disagree with functionalists and argue that the socialisation aspect of the role of education is not to create value consensus but that education is uses as an ideological state apparatus, to transmit ruling class ideology.

Marxists suggest that the role of education is to ‘brainwash’ the working class. Althusser argues that education is an ideological state apparatus that transmits ruling class ideology in order to legitimse the inequality caused by the capitalist class. Bowles and Gintis argue that there is a ‘hidden curriculum’ that socialises the working class into obedient workers in order to benefit capitalism. For example, they are taught that being punished for minor issues is acceptable and the importance of punctuality and that they have to obey the people above them in the social hierarchy – e.g. teachers then boss. However, a specific problem of the hidden curriculum is that a study by Willis showed that students can see through the role of education and reject the hidden curriculum.

Bowles and Gintis also argued that there is a correspondence principle where school mirrors work. Similarities such as extrinsic satisfaction (only doing something for rewards, not because you enjoy it eg school to get GCSEs, work to get money) socialise working class pupils to not expect a rewarding job when they leave school and this benefits the capitalist class. As a result, Marxists argue that the role of education is to transmit ruling class ideology and benefit the bourgeoisie. However, functionalists and new right disagree and argue that values are shared to create a value consensus. They argue that marxism is wrong for basing it on conflict when it is really consensus.

Functionasts such as Parsons suggest that education is meritocratic. This means that pupils are taught that they need to work hard if they want to achieve. He argues that the education system is based on this which suggests people only fail if they do not try hard enough. However, Marxists such as Bordieu argue that education promotes middle class values which means working class students fail because their values are not wanted by the school – not because of meritocracy. Ball argued that meritocracy is a myth. However, new right agree and argue that it is down to the individual to work hard and achieve.

Perhaps the main strength of explaining the role of education in transmitting ideas/ values is the functionalist view that education is used to create shared values, because it can be applied to real life education because schools do have assemblies and promote core values. Perhaps the main weakness is the postmodern view because although education is more diverse, each school still has an ETHOS that has been developed by middle class individuals.

Post modernists argue that marxists, feminists and functionalists are out of date. Liberal feminists would argue that the role of education is no longer to reinforce hegemonic masculinity but that inequality/ patriarchy is improving.

Examiner Commentary 

Conceptually detailed and located within a broad theoretical framework. Sophisticated analysis and applied clearly to the question. Explicit evaluation throughout.

Did not score maximum as at times evaluation was not fully developed, e.g. postmodernism.

KT’s commentary

An obvious strength of this answer, in addition to the above is it’s clear use of the item!

They also use phrases, such as ‘a specific evaluation’ of this is….

This also shows you that you need good depth of knowledge of the basics of functionalism and Marxism, but you also need to evaluate them with specific comments and P/M to top mark band.

A-level SOCIOLOGY Feedback on the Examinations Student responses and commentaries: Paper 1 7192/1 Education with Theory and Methods Published: Autumn 2017

Share this:

• Share on Tumblr

A Level Sociology Essays – How to Write Them

Use the Point – Explain – Expand – Criticise method (PEEC), demonstrate knowledge, application and evaluation skills, and use the item to make your points!

This post offers some advice on how you might plan and write essays in the A level sociology exams. 

Essays will either be 20 or 30 marks depending on the paper but the general advice for answering them remains the same:

• Use the PEEC method for the main paragraphs: POINT – EXPLAIN – EXPAND – CRITICISE
• Use the overall structure below – PEEC (3 to 5 times) framed by an introduction, then overall evaluations and conclusion towards the end.
• Use the item provided – this must form the basis of your main points!

How to write an A-level sociology essay

• Allow yourself enough time – 1.5 minutes per mark = 45 minutes for a 30 mark essay.
• Read the Question and the item, what is it asking you to do?
• Do a rough plan (5-10 mins) – initially this should be ‘arguments and evidence’ for and ‘against’ the views in the question, and a few thoughts on overall evaluations/ a conclusion. If you are being asked to look at two things, you’ll have to do this twice/ your conclusion should bring the two aspects of the essay together.
• Write the essay (35 mins)– aim to make 3-5 points in total (depending on the essay, either 3 deep points, or 5 (or more) shallower points). Try to make one point at least stem from the item, ideally the first point.
• Try to stick to the following structure in the picture above!
• Overall evaluations – don’t repeat yourself, and don’t overdo this, but it’s useful t tag this in before a conclusion.
• Conclusion (allow 2 mins minimum) – an easy way to do this is to refer to the item – do you agree with the view or not, or say which of the points you’ve made is the strongest/ weakest and on balance is the view in the question sensible or not?

Skills in the A Level Sociology Exam

The AQA wants you to demonstrate 3 sets of skills in the exam – below are a few suggestions about how you can do this in sociology essays.

AO1: Knowledge and Understanding

You can demonstrate these by:

• Using sociological concepts
• Using sociological perspectives
• Using research studies
• Showing knowledge of contemporary trends and news events
• Knowledge can also be synoptic, or be taken from other topics.
• NB – knowledge has to be relevant to the question to get marks!

AO2: Application 

You can demonstrate application by…

• Using the item – refer to the item!!!
• Clearly showing how the material you have selected is relevant to the question, by using the words in the question
• Making sure knowledge selected is relevant to the question.

AO3: Analysis and Evaluation

NB ‘Assess’ is basically the same as Evaluation

You can demonstrate analysis by….

• Considering an argument from a range of perspectives – showing how one perspective might interpret the same evidence in a different way, for example.
• Developing points – by showing why perspectives argue what they do, for example.
• Comparing and contrasting ideas to show their differences and similarities
• You can show how points relate to other points in the essay.

You can demonstrate evaluation by…

• Discussing the strengths and limitations of a theory/ perspective or research method.
• You should evaluate each point, but you can also do overall evaluations from other perspectives before your conclusion.
• NB – Most people focus on weaknesses, but you should also focus on strengths.
• Weighing up which points are the most useful in a conclusion.

Use the item

Every 30 mark question will ask you to refer to an ‘item’. This will be a very short piece of writing, consisting of about 8 lines of text. The item will typically refer to one aspect of the knowledge side of the question and one evaluation point. For example, if the question is asking you to ‘assess the Functionalist view of education’, the item is likely to refer to one point Functionalists make about education – such as role allocation, and one criticism.

All you need to do to use the item effectively is to make sure at least one of your points stems from the knowledge in the item, and develop it. It’s a good idea to make this your first point. To use the evaluation point from the item (there is usually some evaluation in there), then simply flag it up when you use it during the essay.

Signposting

For more exams advice please see my exams and essay advice page

To return to the homepage – revisesociology.com

Seven examples of sociology essays, and more advice…

For more information on ‘how to write sociology essays for the A level exam’ why not refer to my handy ‘how to write sociology essays guide’. 

The contents are as follows:

Introductory Section

• A quick look at the three sociology exam papers
• A pared-down mark scheme for A Level sociology essays
• Knowledge, application, analysis, evaluation, what are they, how to demonstrate them.
• How to write sociology essays – the basics:

These appear first in template form, then with answers, with the skills employed shown in colour. Answers are ‘overkill’ versions designed to get full marks in the exam.

• Assess the Functionalist View of the Role of Education in Society (30) – Quick plan
• Assess the Marxist view of the role of education in society (30) – Detailed full essay
• Assess the extent to which it is home background that is the main cause of differential education achievement by social class (30) – Detailed full essay
• Assess the view that education policies since 1988 have improved equality of educational opportunity (30) – Quick plan
• Assess the view that the main aim of education policies since 1988 has been to raise overall standards in education.’ (30) – Quick plan
• Assess the claim that ‘ethnic difference in educational achievement are primarily the result of school factors’ (30) – Detailed full essay
• Assess the view that in school processes, rather than external factors, are the most important in explaining differences in educational achievement (30) – detailed essay – Quick plan.