The sociological study of education focuses upon the effects that social institutions and

individual characters have upon the education system. Education is often seen as positive
social practice which thrives to identify personal skills and talents, and subsequently build
upon them. Consensus social theorists support this approach with structural functionalism
claiming education to have many positive functions. Education is essential to maintain the
modern workforce. This view, however, is not universal; with Marxists taking a
contradictory view that education works to reproduce social inequalities, therefore
providing negative functions for society. This conflict approach claims that the education
system does not promote equality but instead transmits capitalist norms and values,
benefitting the ruling class and leaving the working class at a disadvantage.

One of the main purposes of education, according to the consensus approach of

functionalism, is that of socialization. This is described by Bilton (1996: 12) as the process
through which individuals ‘learn the ways of thought and behaviour considered
appropriate in society’. Primary socialization is administered informally by the family. This
process is then continued with the provision of a more formal style of secondary
socialization by other institutions within society. According to Durkheim (1925) and
Parsons (1959), both 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,
but also, possibly more importantly in Durkheim’s 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 identity within the community. Fulcher and Scott (2007:
321) feel it was, however, the moral aspect of the secondary socialization provided by the
education system that concerned Durkheim the most. Through discipline within school,
children are taught morally acceptable behaviour. However, rather than simply being
forced to obey, it is essential that they are made to understand and appreciate the moral
code of wider society, causing 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 concept of providing pupils with a sense of community. Aspects of
school, such as all wearing the same uniform and participating in group charity or sporting
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 focused 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, class. 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, Secondary 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 said to be written in middle class
language, therefore meaning that the working class were still left at a disadvantage. This
led to it being said that the system was actually leaning towards Marxism, rather than
functionalist ideas, as it appeared to reproduce social class inequalities.