The purpose and function of educational institutions

Although sociologists have debated the purpose and function of educational institutions, most agree that access to educational opportunities has a profound effect on individual life chances and attainment. We'll consider how specific education policies and practices -like school choice, curriculum differentiation, school finance, and school assignment - shape the range of educational opportunities afforded students. Because issues of equity have moved to the forefront of education policies during the past fifty years, we'll discuss the consequences of these policies and practices for students from different social backgrounds - primary among these differences are differences by social class, race/ethnicity, and gender.

During the next three weeks we'll consider different explanations for the existence of schools and mass education in modern societies. A central question is whether or not schools function to promote social mobility and economic well-being or whether or not schools function to reproduce social inequalities and secure valued resources for individuals from privileged social backgrounds.

An alternative, though not necessarily conflicting proposition, is that educational institutions promote social mobility, achievement, and economic growth in modern societies. The relationship between education and status attainment (e.g., earnings or occupational prestige) has often been provided as evidence that a country has an open and fluid society, one which provides individual opportunities for social advancement through the acquisition of technical skills and knowledge. This week we'll examine the status attainment paradigm and some research that seeks to test it

many sociologists point to the fact that educational attainment is also related to an individual's family background (i.e., one's socioeconomic status). These sociologists see educational institutions not as promoting social equality but as promoting social inequalities.

Conflict theory sees the purpose of education as maintaining social inequality and preserving the power of those who dominate society. Conflict theorists examine the same functions of education as functionalists. Functionalists see education as a beneficial contribution to an ordered society; however, conflict theorists see the educational system as perpetuating the status quo by dulling the lower classes into being obedient workers.

Both functionalists and conflict theorists agree that the educational system practices sorting, but they disagree about how it enacts that sorting. Functionalists claim that schools sort based upon merit; conflict theorists argue that schools sort along distinct class and ethnic lines. According to conflict theorists, schools train those in the working classes to accept their position as a lower-class member of society. Conflict theorists call this role of education the "hidden curriculum."

Marx

The political system, the legal system, the family, the press, the education system were all rooted, in the final analysis, to the class nature of society, which in turn was a reflection of the economic base. Marx maintained that the economic base or infrastructure generated or had built upon it a superstructure that kept it functioning. The education system, as part of the superstructure, therefore, was a reflection of the economic base and served to reproduce it. This did not mean that education and teaching was a sinister plot by the ruling class to ensure that it kept its privileges and its domination over the rest of the population. There were no conspirators hatching devious schemes. It simply meant that the institutions of society, like education, were reflections of the world created by human activity and that ideas arose from and reflected the material conditions and circumstances in which they were generated.