amazon.co.ukEducation
Role and functions of education, class, ethnic and gender differences in achievement, labelling, streaming, marketisation and policy — with 30-mark essay technique for AQA 4.1.1, OCR H580/03 and Eduqas.
🎯 Learning Objectives
- Set out functionalist, Marxist and feminist views of the role of the education system (AQA 4.1.1.1)
- Explain class differences in achievement through external (material and cultural) and internal factors (AQA 4.1.1.2)
- Explain ethnic and gender differences in achievement with named studies and dates (AQA 4.1.1.3-4)
- Analyse relationships and processes within schools: labelling, streaming, pupil subcultures and pupil identities (AQA 4.1.1.5)
- Evaluate the significance of educational policies from 1944 to the present, including marketisation, parentocracy, privatisation and globalisation of policy (AQA 4.1.1.6)
- Deploy education content in 10- and 30-mark essays and in the Methods in Context question (AQA 4.1.2)
📋 Key Definitions and Core Concepts
Meritocracy: The claim (Parsons) that education sifts and sorts pupils by ability and effort, so success reflects talent — the 'myth of meritocracy' for Bowles and Gintis.
Correspondence principle: Bowles and Gintis (1976): school hierarchies, punctuality and reward systems mirror the workplace, reproducing a passive, obedient workforce for capitalism.
Cultural capital: Bourdieu (1984): the knowledge, tastes and language middle-class parents pass on, which the education system values and rewards, converting class advantage into qualifications.
Material deprivation: Lack of physical necessities — housing, diet, income — that hinders attainment; statistically linked to free school meals eligibility and class gaps.
Labelling: Becker: teachers judge pupils against an 'ideal pupil' image (middle-class) and attach labels that shape how pupils are treated and how they respond.
Self-fulfilling prophecy: Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968): teacher expectations, once communicated, cause pupils to internalise labels and act them out.
Streaming: Separating pupils into ability groups across subjects; Lacey (1970) and Ball (1981) show it pushes lower-stream pupils into anti-school subcultures.
Pupil subculture: A group whose members share values and status derived from response to school — pro-school (high stream) or anti-school (low stream) subcultures (Lacey).
Marketisation: The 1988 Education Reform Act policy of creating an education market: formula funding, league tables, open enrolment and competition between schools.
Parentocracy: Miriam David's term for the marketised claim that parental choice drives standards; Ball, Bowe and Gewirtz (1994) call it a myth.
Ideological state apparatus: Althusser (1971): institutions such as education and media transmit ruling-class ideology, reproducing and legitimating class inequality.
Ethnocentric curriculum: A curriculum centred on one culture (Coard 1971: white, British, Christian) that devalues minority-ethnic pupils' identities and lowers their self-esteem.
📌 Key Points
Functionalist: Durkheim (school as society in miniature), Parsons (1961, bridge and meritocracy), Davis and Moore (1945, role allocation).
Marxist: Bowles and Gintis (1976, correspondence principle), Althusser (1971, ISA), Willis (1977, lads resist).
Class — external: material deprivation (Smith and Noble 1995), cultural capital (Bourdieu 1984; Sullivan 2001); internal: labelling (Becker), streaming (Lacey 1970, Ball 1981).
Ethnic: Gillborn and Youdell (2000, educational triage), Coard (1971), Fuller (1984), Mirza (1997), institutional racism (Gillborn 2008).
Gender: girls' improvement (Gorard et al 2001; Sharpe 1994), boys' underachievement (Mitsos and Browne 1998), laddish subcultures (Sewell).
Policy: 1944 tripartite, comprehensives, 1988 ERA marketisation, parentocracy (Ball, Bowe and Gewirtz 1994), privatisation (Ball and Youdell 2008), PISA policy borrowing (Ball 2008).
The role and functions of the education system
AQA 4.1.1.1 (also OCR H580/03 Section B) expects competing views of what education is for. Functionalism: Durkheim argued school is 'society in miniature' — teaching shared norms and values creates the social solidarity modern society needs; Parsons (1961) saw school as the focal socialising agency, a bridge between family's particularistic values and society's universalistic ones, operating through meritocracy; Davis and Moore (1945) added role allocation — education sifts and sorts the most able into the most functionally important (best-rewarded) roles.
Marxism: Bowles and Gintis (1976) claimed the correspondence principle mirrors workplace hierarchy in school — subservience, motivation by external rewards, fragmentation — producing a passive workforce; the claim that education is meritocratic is a myth that legitimises inequality by making class advantage look like talent. Althusser (1971) called education an Ideological State Apparatus reproducing and legitimating class inequality. Willis (1977) supplied the classic evaluation: his 12 'lads' formed a counter-school culture, partially seeing through school ideology yet still drifting into manual work — resisting, but not escaping, class reproduction.
Feminism: education historically channelled girls into domestic subjects; girls still face gendered subject choice and the devaluation of feminine achievement.
Evaluation of each view
Functionalism: assumes a value consensus that may simply reflect dominant groups; explanations risk teleology ('schools exist because they have functions'); ignores inequality of opportunity. Marxism: economically deterministic — Willis shows pupils resist; the correspondence principle overstates workplace similarity (many jobs are not hierarchical); ignores gender and ethnicity. Interactionism (Becker): focuses on meanings and everyday processes but ignores structure — a pupil's poverty shapes attainment regardless of teacher meaning.
Class differences in achievement: external and internal factors
AQA 4.1.1.2 splits explanations into external (home and background) and internal (school processes). External — material deprivation: poor housing affects study space and health; Smith and Noble (1995) listed housing, diet and income as barriers to schooling; Tanner et al (2003) showed the cost of books, uniforms and transport burdens low-income families; Flaherty (2004) found free school meals carry stigma that discourages uptake.
External — cultural factors: Bernstein (1975) distinguished restricted and elaborated speech codes — schools use and reward the elaborated code middle-class pupils arrive with (criticised by Labov as language difference, not deficit); Douglas (1964) linked parental interest to attainment; Feinstein (2003) showed educated parents' children do better from the earliest years; Bernstein and Young (1967) found middle-class mothers buy more educational toys; Sugarman (1970) identified working-class subcultural values — fatalism, immediate gratification, present-time orientation. Cultural capital: Bourdieu (1984) argued middle-class parents pass on cultural capital (knowledge, tastes, language) which schools reward; Sullivan (2001) measured it — pupils with wider reading and cultural knowledge did better, supporting Bourdieu over pure cultural deprivation theory.
Internal — labelling and streaming: Becker (1971) found teachers' 'ideal pupil' image was middle-class; Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) demonstrated the self-fulfilling prophecy in 'Pygmalion in the Classroom'; Hargreaves (1967) showed differentiation and polarisation — streaming pushes lower-stream working-class pupils into anti-school subcultures; Lacey (1970) found the same in Hightown Grammar; Ball (1981) at Beachside showed even banding (not full streaming) produced the same polarisation. Archer et al (2010) analysed working-class pupil identities — 'Nike identities' — showing schools devalue working-class taste, and pupils respond with symbolic violence.
Ethnic and gender differences in achievement
AQA 4.1.1.3 — ethnic differences: external factors include material deprivation and racism in wider society (Rex 1986 — racial discrimination in housing and work); internal factors matter more in exam answers: Gillborn and Youdell (2000) found 'educational triage' — schools under pressure from league tables sort pupils into those who will pass anyway, hopeless cases and borderline A-to-C candidates, with black pupils over-represented in the lower groups; the A-to-C economy drives it. Coard (1971) argued the curriculum is ethnocentric, devaluing black culture and lowering self-esteem; Troyna and Williams (1986) agreed the curriculum gives priority to English and European culture. Pupil responses: Fuller (1984) found black girls rejected labels and channelled anger into achievement; Mirza (1997) found teachers' racism produced 'failed strategies' — girls avoided teachers who labelled them, costing attainment; Sewell (1997) found black male peer groups valued rebellion, but this is not inevitable. Gillborn (2008) argues institutional racism pervades the system — the 'assessment regime' disadvantages ethnic minorities systematically. AO3: some pupils resist labels (Fuller) and Chinese pupils outperform all groups, complicating single explanations.
AQA 4.1.1.4 — gender differences: girls now outperform boys at GCSE and in university entry. Girls' improvement: the impact of feminism since the 1970s; changing ambitions — Sharpe (1994) found 1970s girls prioritised love and marriage, 1990s girls careers; assessment changes — Gorard et al (2001) showed the gender gap opened with GCSE coursework (1988), then stabilized; equal opportunities policies (GIST, WISE, the National Curriculum) removed formal barriers; teacher attention — Swann (1998) found girls receive more interaction because reading is valued. Boys' underachievement: Mitsos and Browne (1998) blamed poor literacy, laddish subcultures and the feminisation of schooling (Sewell 2006); Francis (2000) found boys' identities conflict with schoolwork. AO3: radical feminists note girls still face patriarchy — subjects remain gendered and the pay gap awaits them.
Evaluation: class, gender and ethnicity interact
The A* answer treats class, gender and ethnicity as interacting, not separate: working-class black boys face both class disadvantage and racialised labelling (Archer et al 2010 — 'Nike identities'); Chinese pupils outperform all groups, undermining single-cause explanations; and girls' success coexists with gendered subject choice and the eventual pay gap. Interactionists (Becker) explain in-school meanings but not out-of-school causes; structural theories explain patterns but not why individual pupils respond differently. Examiner tip: in 'outline and evaluate' questions on ethnic or gender differences, always weigh external against internal factors and end with a judgement about which better explains the pattern.
Relationships and processes within schools, and educational policies
AQA 4.1.1.5 — processes within schools: teacher-pupil relationships shape achievement through labelling (Becker 1971), expectations and the self-fulfilling prophecy (Rosenthal and Jacobson 1968); streaming creates pupil subcultures through differentiation and polarisation (Hargreaves 1967; Lacey 1970) — pro-school subcultures gain status from achievement, anti-school subcultures from rebellion; Keddie (1971) found teachers denied lower-stream pupils knowledge, not ability, driving failure; pupil identities (Archer et al 2010) show class, gender and ethnicity interact — 'ideal pupil' images shift by context, and working-class pupils' 'Nike identities' invite symbolic violence.
AQA 4.1.1.6 — policies: the 1944 Education Act created the tripartite system — grammar, secondary modern and technical schools selected by the 11-plus, embodying functionalist meritocracy claims; Ford (1969) showed streaming in a comprehensive simply reproduced the same differences. From 1965, comprehensives replaced selection. The 1988 Education Reform Act introduced marketisation: national curriculum, formula funding (per-pupil budgets), league tables and open enrolment — Miriam David called the claimed result a parentocracy; Ball, Bowe and Gewirtz (1994) called it a myth: privileged-skilled choosers (middle-class, mobile) capture the best places, disconnected choosers (working-class) take what remains; Bartlett (1993) showed cream-skimming (schools selecting high-achievers) and silt-shifting. Chubb and Moe (1990) supported marketisation, arguing parental choice raises standards. New Labour (1997-2010): academies, specialist schools, Education Action Zones, Education Maintenance Allowances, Sure Start — aimed at both standards and equality. Coalition 2010 onwards: free schools (Allen 2010 questioned their benefit), the pupil premium, academy expansion. Privatisation: Ball and Youdell (2008) distinguish endogenous (private sector involvement in state education) and exogenous (education sold as a commodity abroad) privatisation. Globalisation of policy: PISA rankings and international comparisons drive policy borrowing (Ball 2008). AO3: functionalists see marketisation promoting choice and standards; Marxists see it reproducing class inequality under a parentocracy myth.
Policies — evaluation points to deploy
Use these AO3 points in any policy essay: (1) Ball, Bowe and Gewirtz (1994) — the parentocracy is a myth; middle-class 'privileged-skilled choosers' capture the best places, so marketisation widens class gaps. (2) Gillborn and Youdell (2000) — league tables create educational triage, penalising schools with disadvantaged intakes. (3) Allen (2010) — free schools are untested and may widen inequality. (4) Functionalists (Chubb and Moe 1990) — competition raises standards where parents can choose. (5) The New Right — welfare and comprehensive schooling undermined standards; marketisation restored discipline and choice. Pair each with the policy it evaluates.
Exam technique for education essays
On AQA 7192 Paper 1, education appears as 4- and 6-mark item questions, a 10-mark 'outline and analyse two...', and the 20-mark Methods in Context question (Q5); on OCR H580/03 as item-based questions plus a 30-mark assess essay; on Eduqas as extended 'discuss' essays.
| Command word | What it demands | AO focus |
|---|---|---|
| Outline and analyse two | Two developed points, each applied to the question | AO1 + AO2 |
| Outline and evaluate | Knowledge plus sustained debate with a reached judgement | AO1 + AO2 + AO3 |
| Assess / discuss how far | Weigh evidence for and against a claim | AO3-heavy |
30-mark skeleton: (1) define the claim (e.g. what counts as 'inside school'); (2) three or four developed points, each with a named study and date; (3) three or four evaluations with counter-theorists; (4) a conclusion with a weighed judgement answering the exact question.
Common pitfalls: confusing external (home, background) and internal (school process) factors; describing policy without evaluating it; citing Murdock-style universality or Parsons' meritocracy without critique (Bowles and Gintis); ignoring Willis' counter-evidence that pupils resist; listing material and cultural deprivation without studies; ending without a judgement.
Timing: 30 marks ≈ 30 minutes — plan 4, write 24, check 2. For 10-markers, two developed points with application suffice — do not spend evaluation credit early.
💡 Worked Example
Exam-style: 1. Outline and evaluate the view that working-class underachievement in education is the result of factors inside school. [30 marks]
2. Outline and analyse two ways in which marketisation policies have affected schools. [10 marks]
Mark-scheme logic: Q1 (30 marks): AO1 — internal factors: labelling (Becker 1971 ideal pupil), self-fulfilling prophecy (Rosenthal and Jacobson 1968), streaming and subcultures (Hargreaves 1967; Lacey 1970; Ball 1981), pupil identities (Archer et al 2010). AO2 — apply each to working-class pupils specifically. AO3 — external factors matter: material deprivation (Tanner et al 2003; Flaherty 2004) and cultural capital (Bourdieu 1984; Sullivan 2001) explain gaps in-school processes cannot; labels reflect class power, not individual teacher bias (Marxism); many pupils resist labels (Fuller 1984). Judgement: internal processes matter but interact with out-of-school causes — neither alone explains underachievement. Q2 (10 marks): two developed effects, e.g. formula funding and league tables created competition and a claimed parentocracy (David), raising standards where schools compete (Chubb and Moe 1990); cream-skimming and silt-shifting (Bartlett 1993) let successful schools select high-achievers, widening inequality (Ball, Bowe and Gewirtz 1994 myth of parentocracy). Developed application only — no extended evaluation required.
❓ Practice Questions & Mark Schemes
Outline and analyse two functions of the education system. [10 marks]
Answer: Mark-scheme logic: two developed points with application. (1) Creating social solidarity: school is 'society in miniature' transmitting shared values (Durkheim) — subjects like history and citizenship integrate individuals. (2) Role allocation: education sifts and sorts the most able into the most important, best-rewarded roles (Davis and Moore 1945) — e.g. exams allocating pupils to university places. Accept also: secondary socialisation (Parsons 1961); developing specialist skills for the division of labour. Each developed to 5 marks.
Outline and evaluate the functionalist view that education is meritocratic. [30 marks]
Answer: AO1: Parsons (1961) — school as the bridge to universalistic standards, rewarding ability and effort; Davis and Moore (1945) — role allocation; Durkheim — solidarity through shared values. AO2: apply to exams, streaming, university entry and the labour market. AO3: Bowles and Gintis (1976) — the myth of meritocracy: class background predicts qualifications better than ability, and schools reproduce inequality (correspondence principle); Bourdieu (1984) and Sullivan (2001) — cultural capital converts class advantage into achievement; Willis (1977) — working-class lads resist but still end up in manual work; Gillborn and Youdell (2000) — educational triage shows allocation is shaped by league tables, not pure talent. Conclusion must judge how far education is meritocratic with a weighed statement.
Outline and analyse two ways in which labelling may affect pupils' achievement. [10 marks]
Answer: Mark-scheme logic: two developed points. (1) Self-fulfilling prophecy: teacher expectations, once communicated, cause pupils to internalise labels and act them out (Rosenthal and Jacobson 1968) — raising or lowering achievement. (2) Streaming and subcultures: labels feed ability grouping, pushing lower-stream pupils into anti-school subcultures that reject achievement (Hargreaves 1967; Lacey 1970; Ball 1981). Accept also: teachers' 'ideal pupil' image is middle-class (Becker 1971), so working-class pupils are labelled negatively from the start; denial of knowledge to lower streams (Keddie 1971). Each developed to 5 marks.
Outline and evaluate the view that ethnic differences in achievement are mainly caused by factors within schools. [30 marks]
Answer: AO1: internal factors — educational triage and the A-to-C economy (Gillborn and Youdell 2000), ethnocentric curriculum (Coard 1971; Troyna and Williams 1986), teacher racism and failed strategies (Mirza 1997), peer groups (Sewell 1997), institutional racism (Gillborn 2008). AO2: apply to black, Asian and Chinese pupils' differing outcomes. AO3: external factors matter — material deprivation and racism in wider society (Rex 1986); Fuller (1984) shows pupils resist labels, so processes are not deterministic; Chinese pupils outperform despite the same curriculum, complicating the ethnocentrism claim; interactionist focus ignores structure. Conclusion must judge how far in-school factors explain the differences, with a weighed statement.
Outline and analyse two reasons why girls now outperform boys in education. [10 marks]
Answer: Mark-scheme logic: two developed points. (1) Changed ambitions and feminism: the women's movement raised girls' aspirations — 1970s girls prioritised love and marriage, 1990s girls careers (Sharpe 1994); equal opportunities policies (GIST, WISE, National Curriculum) removed formal barriers. (2) Assessment and classroom processes: the gender gap opened with GCSE coursework (Gorard et al 2001), which girls' sustained effort suits; teachers value reading and give girls more interaction (Swann 1998). Accept also: boys' laddish subcultures and poor literacy (Mitsos and Browne 1998); the feminisation of schooling (Sewell 2006). Each developed to 5 marks.