Functionalist vs. Conflict Theory in Education
Functionalist vs. Conflict Approaches to Education
The Functionalist Perspective
Functionalists view modern society as a meritocracy, where success is achieved through ability and hard work, rather than ascription or inheritance. They believe that children from all socioeconomic backgrounds should have equal opportunities to attain high-status jobs. Functionalists see society as requiring highly trained individuals with specialized skills. They also emphasize the importance of an educated citizenry for a functioning democracy, promoting informed decision-making, tolerance, and a focus on social justice.
Schooling Functions
- Manifest functions: These include transmitting culture, integrating diverse groups, developing cognitive skills, fostering new knowledge, and driving scientific discoveries.
- Latent functions: These are unintended consequences, such as delaying entry into the job market, providing childcare, and teaching discipline and obedience.
Christopher Hurn notes that the alignment between the functionalist perspective and current realities may not be perfect.
Many schools utilize tracking, placing students in programs based on curricular needs or abilities. Functionalists support tracking as it aligns with the principles of equal opportunity and rewarding merit.
However, evidence suggests that social class remains a stronger predictor of future economic success than measured ability.
The Conflict Theory Perspective
Conflict theorists emphasize three key points:
- Conflict theorists perceive a struggle among competing groups for control of schooling, each striving to advance its interests and values.
- This struggle is unequal, with the elite typically holding the advantage.
- Conflict theorists assert that employers prioritize loyalty, obedience, and submissiveness in workers, more so than a minimum skill level. They believe employers seek workers with “appropriate” attitudes and values.
Conflict theorists highlight the role of schools in maintaining the existing social class system. Tracking contributes to this inequality by limiting opportunities.
Schools also reinforce the class system by teaching values and personality traits deemed necessary for specific societal positions.
Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis argue that schooling serves the interests of capitalist society. They propose that different roles in the workforce require different approaches, and schools reflect this. Schools whose graduates enter higher-level occupations tend to encourage independent thinking and creativity, while those preparing students for lower-level jobs may emphasize obedience and conformity. They believe schools instill values and attitudes aligned with students’ anticipated future roles, often mirroring their parents’ positions.
Randall Collins suggests that educational credentials, often unnecessary, are used to control access to desirable jobs. He believes that most job skills are learned on the job, and schools are not always effective at teaching intellectual skills, with much of the taught content quickly forgotten. He agrees that schools primarily teach manners and behavior, rather than cognitive skills.