Page 1 of 9

The Functionalist Perspective: Emile Durkheim-Education and Social Solidarity

Writing at the turn of the last century, the French sociologist Emile Durkheim saw the major function of education as the
transmission of society’s norms and values. He maintained:

Society can survive only if there exists among its members a sufficient degree of homogeneity; education perpetuates and
reinforces this homogeneity by fixing in the child from the beginning the essential similarities which collective life demands.
Durkheim, l96l, first published l925.

Without these ‘essential similarities’, cooperation, social solidarity, and therefore social life itself would be impossible. A vital task
for all societies is the welding of a mass of individuals into a united whole in other words, the creation of social solidarity. This
involves a commitment to society, a sense of belonging, and a feeling that the social unit is more important than the individual.
Durkheim argued ‘To become attached to society, the child must feel in it something that is real, alive and powerful, which
dominates the person and to which he also owes the best part of himself.’

Education, and in particular the teaching of history, provides this link between the individual and society. If the history of their
society is brought alive to children, they will come to see that they are part of something larger than themselves: they will develop
a sense of commitment to the social group.

Education and social rules Durkheim argued that, in complex industrial societies, the school serves a function that cannot be
provided either by the family or by the peer group. Membership of the family is based on kinship relationships: membership of the
peer group on personal choice. Membership of society as a whole is based on neither of these principles.

Individuals must learn to cooperate with those who are neither their kin nor their friends. The school provides a context where
these skills can be learned. As such, it is society in miniature, a model of the social system. in school, the child must interact with
other members of the school community in terms of a fixed set of rules. This experience prepares them for interacting with
members of society as a whole in terms of society’s rules.

Durkheim believed school rules should be strictly enforced. Punishments should reflect the seriousness of the damage done to
the social group by the offence, and it should be made clear to transgressors why they were being punished. in this way, students
would come to learn that it was wrong to act against the interests of the social group as a whole. They would learn to exercise
self-discipline, not just because they wanted to avoid punishment, but also because they would come to see that misbehaviour
damaged society as a whole. Science, and particularly social sciences like sociology, would help the child to understand the
rational basis on which society was organised. Durkheim stated:

It is by respecting the school rules that the child learns to respect rules in general, that he develops the habit of self-control and
restraint simply because he should control and restrain himself. it is a first initiation into the austerity of duty. Serious life has now
begun. Durkheim, l96l, first published l925.

The ‘necessary homogeneity for social survival’, and specific skills, which provide the ‘necessary diversity for social cooperation’.
Value consensus and a specialised division of labour whereby specialists combine to produce goods and services thus unite
industrial society.

However, Durkheim’s views on education are open to a number of criticisms:

I. Durkheim assumes societies have a shared culture that can be transmitted through the education system. Countries such as
Britain are now multicultural and it Is therefore debatable whether there Is a single culture on which schools could base their
curriculum.

2.. Marxists argue that educational institutions tend to transmit a dominant culture which serves the interests of the ruling class
rather than those of society as a whole.

Talcott Parsons – Education and Universalistic Values

The American sociologist Talcott Parsons (l96l) outlined what has become the accepted functionalist view of
education. Writing in the late l95Os, Parsons argued that, after primary socialisation within the family, the school takes over as the
focal socialising agency: school acts as a bridge between the family and society as a whole, preparing children for their adult role.

Within the family, the child is judged and treated largely in terms of particularistic standards. Parents treat the child as their
particular child rather than judging them in terms of standards or yardsticks that can be applied to every individual. However, in
the wider society the individual is treated and judged in terms of universalistic standards, which are applied to all members,
regardless of their kinship ties.
Within the family. the child’s status is ascribed: it is fixed by birth. However, in advanced industrial society. status in adult life is
largely achieved: for example, individuals achieve their occupational status. Thus, the child must move from the particularistic
standards and ascribed status of the family to the universalistic standards and achieved status of adult society.

The school prepares young people for this transition. It establishes universalistic standards, in terms of which all students achieve
their status. Their conduct is assessed against the yardstick of the school rules; their achievement is measured by performance
in examinations. The same standards are applied to all students regardless of ascribed characteristics such as sex, race, family
background or class of origin. Schools operate on meritocratic principles: status is achieved on the basis of merit.

Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E.Moore – Education and Role Allocation

Like Parsons, Davis and Moore (I967, first published I945) saw education as a means of role allocation, but they linked the
educational system more directly with the system of social stratification. Davis and Moore see social stratification as a mechanism
for ensuring that the most talented and able members of society are allocated to those positions that are functionally most important
for society. High rewards, which act as incentives, are attached to those positions. This means, in
theory, that all will compete for them and the most talented will win through.

The education system is an important part of this process. In Davis’s words, it is the ‘proving ground for ability and hence the
selective agency for placing people in different Statuses according to their capacities’. ‘Thus the education system sifts, sorts and
grades individuals in terms of their talents and abilities. It rewards the most talented, with high qualifications, which in turn provide
entry to those occupations that are functionally most important to society.

Criticisms of Davis and Moore

With respect to the relationship between education and social stratification, there are a number of more Specific criticisms:

l. The relationship between academic credentials and occupational reward is not particularly close. In particular, income is only
weakly linked to educational attainment.

2. There is considerable doubt about the proposition that the educational system grades people in terms of ability. In particular, it
has been argued that intelligence has little effect upon educational attainment.

3. There Is considerable evidence to suggest that the influence of social stratification largely prevents the educational system from
efficiently grading individuals in terms of ability.

Education -conflict perspectives

Functionalism assumes that education makes positive contributions to society as a whole. An effective education system is seen
to benefit all members of society. By contrast, conflict perspectives are based on the view that there is a conflict of interest between
groups in society. In particular; the powerful are seen to gain at the expense of the less powerful. From a conflict perspective,
education largely serves the interests of the powerful. lt maintains their power, justifies their privilege and legitimises their wealth.

This section focuses on Marxist views of education.

Samuel Herbert Gintis Schooling in America

The American Marxist economists and sociologists Bowles and Gintis (I976), argue that the major role of education in capitalist
societies is the reproduction of labour power. In particular, they maintain that there is ‘close “correspondence” between the social
relationships which govern personal interaction in the work place and the social relationships of the education system’. According
to Bowles and Gintis, this correspondence principle provides the key to understanding the workings of the education system. Work
casts a ‘long shadow’ over the education system: education is subservient to the needs of those who control the workforce the
owners of the means of production.

The hidden curriculum

The first major way in which education functions is to provide capitalists with a workforce which has the personality, attitudes and
values that are most useful to them. Like Marx, Bowles and Gintis regard work in capitalist societies as both exploitative and
alienating; yet, if capitalism is to succeed, it requires a hard-working, docile, obedient and highly motivated workforce, which is too
divided and fragmented to challenge the authority of management.

The education system helps to achieve these objectives largely through the hidden curriculum. It is not the content of lessons and
the examinations that students take which are important, but the form that teaching and learning take and the way that schools
are organised. The hidden curriculum consists of those things that students learn through the experience of attending school,
rather than the stated educational objectives of such institutions. According to Bowles and Gintis, the hidden curriculum shapes
the future workforce in the following ways:
I. It helps to produce a subservient workforce of uncritical, passive and docile workers. In a study based upon 237 members of the
senior year in a New York high school, Bowles and Gintis found that the grades awarded related more to personality traits than
academic abilities. They found that low grades were related to creativity, aggressiveness and independence, while higher grades
were related to perseverance, consistency, dependability and punctuality.

Far from living up to the ideal of encouraging self development, the American education system was creating an unimaginative
and unquestioning workforce that could be easily manipulated by employers.

2. Bowles and Gintis claim that the hidden curriculum encourages an acceptance of hierarchy. Schools are organised on a
hierarchical principle of authority and control. Teachers give orders; students obey. Students have little control over the subjects
they study or how they study them. This prepares-them for relationships within the workplace where, if workers are to stay out of
trouble, they will need to defer to the authority of supervisors and managers.

3. At school, students learn to be motivated by external rewards, just as the workforce in a capitalist society is motivated by external
rewards. Because students have so little control over, and little feeling of involvement in, their schoolwork, they get little satisfaction
from studying. Learning is based upon the ‘jug and mug’ principle. The teachers possess knowledge that they pour into the ‘empty
mugs’, the students. It is not therefore surprising that many students do not enjoy the process of schooling. Instead, they are
encouraged to take satisfaction from the external reward of a qualification at the end of their studies. The qualification offers the
promise of employment, or better-paid employment than would otherwise have been the case.

The subsequent creation of a workforce motivated by external rewards is necessary, according to Bowles and Gintis, because
work in capitalist societies is intrinsically unsatisfying. It is not organised according to the human need for fulfilling work, but
according to the capitalist’s desire to make the maximum possible profit. As a result, the workers must be motivated by the external
reward of the wage packet, just as the student is motivated by the external reward of the qualification. Bowles and Gintis claim
that another important aspect of the hidden curriculum is the fragmentation of school subjects. The student, during the course of
the school day, moves from one subject to another: from mathematics to history, to French, to English. Little connection is made
between the lessons: knowledge is fragmented and compartmentalised into academic subjects.

This aspect of education corresponds to the fragmentation of the workforce. Bowles and Gintis believe most jobs in factories and
offices have been broken down into very specific tasks carried out by separate individuals. In this way, workers are denied
knowledge of the overall productive process, which makes it difficult for them to set up in competition with their employers.
Furthermore, a fragmented and divided workforce is easier to control, and this control can be maintained because of the principle
of ‘divide and conquer’. It becomes difficult for the workforce to unite in opposition to those in authority over them.

Intelligence, educational attainment and meritocracy

Bowles and Gintis base their argument on an analysis of the relationships between intelligence (measured in terms of
an individual’s intelligence quotient or IQ), educational attainment and occupational reward. They argue that IQ accounts for only
a small part of educational attainment.

Bowles and Gintis examined a sample of individuals with average lQ. Within this sample they found a wide range of variation in
educational attainment, which led them to conclude that there is hardly any relationship between IQ and academic qualifications.

They found a direct relationship between educational attainment and family background. The causal factor is not IQ, but the class
position of the individual’s parents. In general, the higher a person’s class of origin, the longer they remain in the educational
system and the higher their qualifications.

But why do students with high qualifications tend to have higher-than-average intelligence? Bowles and Gintis argue that this
relationship is largely ‘a spin-off, a by-product’ of continued education. The longer an individual stays in the educational system,
the more their IQ develops. Thus, IQ is a consequence of length of stay, not the cause of it.

The above evidence led Bowles and Gintis to conclude that, at least in terms of IQ, the educational system does not function as
a meritocracy. They apply a similar argument to the statistical relationship between IQ and occupational reward. In general,
individuals in highly paid occupations have above average IQs. However, Bowles and Gintis reject the view that IQ is directly
related to occupational success. Within their sample of people with average IQs, they found a wide range of income variation. If
IQ were directly related to occupational reward, the incomes of those with the same IQ should be similar. Again Bowles and Gintis
found that family background was the major factor accounting for differences in income.

Bowles and Gintis can be criticised for their claims about the way that schools shape personality. They did not carry out detailed
research into life within schools. They tended to assume that the hidden curriculum was actually influencing students. There are,
however, numerous studies that show that many students have scant regard for the rules of the school, and little respect for the
authority of the teacher. Paul Willis 1977) (see pp. 668-70) showed that working-class ‘lads’ learned to behave at school in ways
quite at odds with capitalism’s supposed need for a docile workforce.
Bowles and Gintis have been criticised for ignoring the influence of the formal curriculum. David Reynolds (I984) claims that much
of the curriculum in British schools does not promote the development of an ideal employee under capitalism. The curriculum does
not seem designed to teach either the skills needed by employers or uncritical passive behaviour, which makes workers easy to
exploit.

Counter culture

Paul Willis (1977) used a Marxist perspective to inform his research. which was carried out over a two-year period in a
manufacturing district near Birmingham (‘Hammertown’). He spent time, however, observing, interviewing and participating with a
main study group of twelve working-class 'non-conformist' pupils in a tough secondary modern school. Willis was trying to show
that there is a strong relationship between factory shop-floor culture and school culture. Responsibility for their actions is
allocated to the individuals. or their group. and they are seen as taking an active part in their own failure. '

The class basis of this is always present in the ways the boys make sense of school. They use ideas which i come from their
parents. ideas about work. The ’shop-floor’ counter culture’ is the Way workers inject some humour and have a laugh at work.
while still getting the work done. This humour is sexist, cruel and aggressively ’-anti intellectual'. The boys' fathers revel in the
macho aspect of manual labour. They and good money” work hard. have a laugh at the bosses. Whom they see as weaklings.
who could not lift a sledgehammer if they tried. They accept their status and are suspicious of authority.
This culture is used and re-created by their sons, who see school as a necessity a bore unless you spice life up a bit by annoying
the staff, fighting and avoiding schoolwork. Their rebellion is subtle, obeying the rules but doing so only when necessary, smiling,
nudging, playing the innocent. They take the model which teachers offer -you listen to me, learn and you will get on' -and turn it
upside down “They are giving their lives some colour and interest by weighing up the teachers, destroying school property, scorning
the kids who do accept the teacher's model

Cultural space and Cultural reproduction

Willis shows how individual and group creation of a cultural space at school a way to get through the day, having a la if and not
working. is related to the class structure of society and the nature of work under capitalism. The lads create their own failure, and
do so willingly, rejecting all the middle-class educational values. They are active in ensuring their own 'failure', but they see it as
success. The schools and teachers are forced into aiding and abetting this, since there are no methods acceptable in education
to try to alter it. These boys are said by stall to deserve their, late. They rebel at school and thus ensure that capitalism continues,
as the class structure is reproduced. ' Working" class kids get working class jobs because their whole cultural style insists that
they must. They do not trust pen pushers, but respect honest manual labour. They have actually conformed, willingly participated
in reproducing the system and their conformity is a product of their rebellion.

The Marxist-interactionist aspect of this Study makes it an interesting example of the new approach to sociology tn the 19705.
One of the main criticisms of Willis is the sexist ignoring of girls voices in the study, how do they see the lads, their work and their
future? The girls are relegated to the role of 'the missus' by the lads, and their mothers say even less. The fact that Willis studied
only boys, has led some to remark that the subtitle to his work should really read 'How working-class boys get working-class jobs'.

Another problem is that he neglects ethnicity in a school with a substantial nun bar of Asian and Afro Caribbean students. He has
also been criticised for the extent of his participation' with the lads, some critics suggesting that he encouraged their behaviour.
For example. in one interview he talked to two pupils who told him how they broke-into the school. Is this ethical? The most telling
criticism is that you cannot generalise from a small unrepresentative sample However this study does provide insights into the two
' sides of the argument about working-class underachievement. Class culture the home and parents' attitudes are important but
the individual social action which reproduces these attitudes and the interaction between cultures and individuals to school is
complex, subtle and loaded with meaning. Willis states that it is most difficult to understand why working-class kids let themselves
fail and they leave the middle-class jobs for middle class kids.

Cultural Deprivation and Compensatory Education: The picture of working-class subculture is not an attractive one. It is often
portrayed as a substandard version of mainstream middle-class culture. Its standard deteriorates towards the lower levels of the
working class, and at rock bottom it becomes the culture of poverty.

From this portrayal, the theory of cultural deprivation was developed. This states that the subculture of low income groups is
deprived or deficient in certain important respects and this accounts for the low educational attainment of members of these
groups. This theory places the blame for educational failure on the children and their family, their neighbourhood and the subculture
of their social group. The so-called culturally deprived child is deficient or lacking in important skills, attitudes and values which
are essential to high educational attainment. Their environment is not only poverty-stricken in economic terms but also in cultural
terms.

The catalogue of deficiencies of the so-called culturally deprived child includes linguistic deprivation, experiential,
cognitive and personality deficiencies, and a wide range of ‘substandard’ attitudes, norms and values.
Compensatory Education and Positive Discrimination

From the viewpoint of cultural deprivation theory, equality of opportunity could only become a reality by compensating for the
deprivations and deficiencies of low-income groups. Only then would low-income students have an equal chance
to seize the opportunities provided for all members of society.

From this kind of reasoning devel0ped the idea of positive discrimination in favour of culturally deprived children: they must be
given a helping hand to compete on equal terms with other children. This took the form of compensatory education additional
educational provision for the culturally deprived. Since, according to many educational psychologists, most of the damage was
done during primary socialisation. when a substandard culture was internalised in an environment largely devoid of ‘richness’ and
stimulation, compensatory education should concentrate on the preschool years.

This thinking lay behind many of the programmes instituted by the Office of Economic Opportunity during President Johnson’s war
on poverty in the USA (from the l960s to the early I970s). Billions of dollars were poured into Operation Head Start, a massive
programme of preschool education, beginning in Harlem and extended to low income areas across America. This and similar
programmes aimed to provide planned enrichment -a stimulating educational environment in which to instil
achievement motivation and lay the foundation for effective learning in the school system.

Criticisms of compensatory education

Critics of cultural deprivation theory have seen it as a smokescreen that disguises the real factors that prevent equality of
educational opportunity. By placing the blame for failure on the child and his or her background, it diverts attention from the
deficiencies of the educational system. William Labov (I973) argued that Operation Head Start was ‘designed to repair the child
rather than the school; to the extent it is based upon this inverted logic, it is bound to fail’.

Sharon Gewirtz (2OOl) sees EAZs as being firmly based Upon the idea of cultural deprivation. She says they involve a ‘massive
programme of resourcing and re-education which has as its ultimate aim the eradication of cultural difference by transforming
working-class parents into middle-class parents’.

Geoff Whitty (2002) criticises EAZs for being based on a cultural deprivation model the working class are seen as lacking the
necessary culture to succeed in education. The. working class have to change to fit in with education rather than education
changing to place more value on working class culture.

Whitty argues that EAZs are likely to have only limited success in raising achievement because they involve quite a modest
redistribution of resources to poor areas. They are therefore unlikely to do much to compensate for the inequalities in the wider
society which lead to poor achievement in deprived areas in the first place.

Any positive effects of EAZs and the BC programme that replaced them may become more evident in the long term, but so far
there is little evidence they will make a major impact on educational disadvantage.

Pierre Bourdieu cultural capital and differential achievement

Cultural deprivation theory has been criticised for assuming or implying that higher-class cultures are superior to working-class
culture. By implication, members of the working class are themselves to blame for the failure of their children in education.
In France, Pierre Bourdieu and his colleagues at the Centre for European Sociology in Paris developed their own
distinctive cultural explanation for achievement, and the role of education in society (Bourdieu, l97l, I973, l974, l984, I994; Bourdieu
and de Saint-Martin, I974; Bourdieu and Passeron, I977). Unlike cultural deprivation theory, Marxism influences cultural capital
theory. This approach does not assume that the culture of higher social classes is in any sense superior to that of the working
class. Bourdieu argues that the education system is systematically biased in favour of the culture of dominant social classes. As
such, it devalues the knowledge and skills of the working class.

Cultural reproduction According to Bourdieu (l97l, I974), the major role of the education system is cultural reproduction. This does
not involve the transmission of the culture of society as a whole, as Durkheim argued, but, instead, the reproduction of the culture
of the ‘dominant classes’. These groups have the power to ‘impose meanings and to impose them as legitimate’. They are able to
define their own culture as ‘worthy of being sought and possessed’, and to establish it as the basis for knowledge in the educational
system. However, this evaluation of dominant culture is ‘arbitrary’. There is no objective way of showing that it is any better or
worse than other subcultures in society. The high value placed on dominant culture in society as a whole simply stems from the
ability of the powerful to impose their definition of reality on Others.

Bourdieu refers to possession of the dominant culture as cultural capital because, via the educational system, it can
be translated into wealth and power. Cultural capital is net evenly distributed throughout the class structure, and this largely
accounts for class differences in educational attainment. Students with upper-class backgrounds have a built-in advantage
because they have been socialised into the dominant culture. Bourdieu claims, ‘the success of all school education depends
fundamentally on the education previously accomplished in the earliest years of life’. Education in school merely builds on this
basis: it does not start from scratch but assumes prior skills and prior knowledge. Children from the dominant classes have
internalised these skills and knowledge during their preschool years. They therefore possess the key to unlock the messages
transmitted in the classroom. In Bourdieu’s words, they “possess the code of the message’. The educational attainment of social
groups is therefore directly related to the amount of cultural capital they possess. Thus, middle-class students have higher success
rates than working-class students because middle-class subculture is closer to the dominant culture.

The habitus: In later work Bourdieu (I984, I994, first published I990) developed his ideas in terms of the concept of habitus.
Habitus refers to the lifestyle, the values, the dispositions and the expectations of particular social groups, A particular habitus is
developed through experience. Individuals learn what to expect out of life, how likely they are to succeed in different projects, how
others will respond to them if they behave in particular ways, and so on. Because different social groups have different experiences
and chances in life, the habitus of each group will be different.

Individuals internalise the values, behaviour and expectations of the habitus, and it shapes their future actions. They are not total
captives of a habitus, they are free to act as they choose, but, it tends to lead them towards making certain choices and regarding
certain types of behaviour as normal.

Individuals have to react to particular events, many of which are novel, but they tend to do so in terms of behaviours that they
have come to see as “reasonable”, “common-sense”, behaviours’ (Bourdieu, I994). Bourdieu therefore argues, ‘the habitus is an
infinite capacity for generating products ~thoughts, perceptions, expressions and actions ~whose limits are set by the historically
and socially situated conditions of its production'. According to Bourdieu, the habitus Is closely linked to the development of taste,
which in turn Is closely related to education.

Education interactionist perspectives

Explanations of class differences in attainment examined in previous sections have been largely based on factors outside the
school. They look at the wider society and argue that an individual’s position in the social structure has an important effect on their
educational attainment. Structural explanations, in this case explanations based on the class structure, see behaviour as shaped
by external factors over which the individual has little control. Their behaviour is seen as largely determined by the directives of
class subcultures and the pressures of the class system.

Typing, labelling and the sell-fulfilling prophecy: One of the most important aspects of the interactionist theory of education
concerns the ways in which teachers make sense of and respond to the behaviour of their students. In their book Deviance in
Classrooms (I975), David H. Hargreaves, Stephen K. Hester and Frank J. Mellor analysed the ways in which students come to be
typed or classified. Their study was based on interviews with teachers and classroom observation in two secondary schools. They
examined the way in which teachers ‘got to know’ new students entering their first year at the school. Teachers have limited
knowledge about their new students as individuals. They may know about the types of catchment area from which students
originate, and have a general image of first-year students, but apart from this they can only start to build up a picture as the school
year progresses. Hargreaves et al. distinguish three stages of typing or classification.

The first stage consists of speculation. The teachers make guesses about the types of students they are dealing with. The
researchers noted seven main criteria on which initial typing was based: teachers distinguished students
according to: (l. Their appearance (2. How far they conformed to discipline (3. Their ability and enthusiasm for work (4. How
likeable they were (5. Their relationships with other children (6. Their personality (7. Whether they were deviant

Hargreaves et al. stress that in the speculation phase teachers are only tentative in their evaluations, and they are willing to amend
their views if initial impressions prove to be misleading. Nevertheless, they do form a working hypothesis -a theory about what sort
of child each student is. The typing or labelling of students can have important effects on their progress. For example, Aaron V.
Cicourel and John I. Kitsuse (I963) conducted a study of the decisions of counsellors in an American high school. The counsellors
played a significant part in the students’ educational careers since they largely decided which students should be placed on
courses designed for preparation for college entry. Although the counsellors claimed to use grades and the results of lQ tests as
the basis for classifying students in terms of achievement, Cicourel and Kitsuse found significant discrepancies between these
measures and the ways in which students were classified.

Cicourel and Kitsuse found that the student’s social class was an important influence on the way they were evaluated. Even when
students from different social backgrounds had similar academic records, counsellors were more likely to perceive those from
middle and upper-middle-class origins as natural ‘college prospects’, and place them on higher level courses. Cicourel and Kitsuse
argued that the counsellors’ classifications of students’ ability and potential were influenced by a whole range of non-academic
factors, such as the students’ appearance, manner and demeanour, assessments of their parents, and reports from teachers on
their conduct and adjustment. Cicourel and Kitsuse suggest that a counsellor’s evaluation of an individual as a serious, personable,
well-rounded student with leadership potential may often have more effect than their grades upon their educational career. They
conclude that such procedures do not uphold the ‘ideal of equal access to educational opportunities for those of equal ability'.
Labelling and the self-fulfilling prophecy Labelling theory argues that once a label is attached to a person there is a tendency for
them to see themselves in terms of the label and act accordingly. And there is a tendency for others to see them in terms of the
label and act towards them on this basis. This may result in a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The self-fulfilling prophecy theory argues that predictions made by teachers about the future success or failure of students will
tend to come true because the prediction has been made. The teacher defines the student in a particular way, such as ‘bright’ or
‘dim’. Based on this definition, the teacher makes predictions or prophecies about the behaviour of the student: for example, that
they will get high or low grades.

The teacher’s interaction with students will be influenced by their definition of the students. They may, for example, expect higher
quality work from, and give greater encouragement to, those whom they have defined as ‘bright’ students. The students’ self-
concepts will tend to be shaped by the teacher’s definition. Students will tend to see themselves as ‘bright’ or ‘dim’, and act
accordingly. Their actions will, in part, be a reflection of what the teacher expects from them. In this way the prophecy is fulfilled:
the predictions made by the teacher have come to pass. Thus, the student’s attainment level is to some degree a result of
interaction between the student and the teacher.

There have been a number of attempts to test the validity of the self-fulfilling prophecy theory. The most famous one was conducted
by Robert Rosenthal and Leonora Jacobson (I968) in an elementary school in California. They selected a random sample of 20
per cent of the student population and informed the teachers that these children could be expected to show rapid intellectual
growth. They tested all students for lQ at the beginning of the experiment. After one year the children were re-tested and, in
general, the sample population showed greater gains in IQ. In addition, report cards indicated that teachers believed that this
group had made greater advances in reading skills.

Criticism of labelling and self-fulfilling prophecy theory: Despite the plausibility of the self-fulfilling prophecy theory, it has
been criticised. One area of criticism concerns the evidence. Rosenthal and Jacobson have been strongly attacked for the
methodology they used in their study. In particular, it has been suggested that the IQ tests they used were of dubious quality and
were improperly administered.

There is evidence that not all students will live up to their labels. in a study of a group of black girls in a London comprehensive
school, Margaret Fuller U984) found that the girls resented the negative stereotypes associated with being both female and black.
They felt that many people expected them to fail, but, far from living up to these expectations, they tried to prove them wrong. The
girls devoted themselves to school work in order to try to ensure their success.

This suggests that negative labels can have a variety of effects. However, this observation weakens the forcefulness of the labelling
theory. It seems that labels can have an effect, but the type of effect is not always predictable.

In almost all the research based on labelling and the self-fulfilling prophecy, the actual process, which is supposed to have led to
changes in self-concept and behaviour, has not been directly observed. For example, Rosenthal and Jacobson only speculated
on how the changes in the children’s performance came about. They were not in the classroom to observe how changes in the
teachers’ attitudes might have led to changes in the students’ behaviour (Rist, 20ll).

Ability grouping ::::If labelling can affect the attainment of individual students, can it affect groups of students? ln many schools,
students are organised into ability groups, groups based on their perceived ability. There are several types of ability grouping.
These include: *Streaming. Students are placed in a class on the basis of their general ability. They remain in that class for most
subjects. *Banding. This is a less rigid form of streaming. Each band contains two or more classes, which may be regrouped for
different subjects. *Setting. Students are placed in classes on the basis of their attainment in particular subjects. For example,
they may be in set I for English and set 3 for maths) *Mixed ability. Students are randomly or intentionally mixed in terms of their
perceived ability (lreson and Hallam, 200l).

Stephen J. Ball- Banding at Beachside Comprehensive: In his book Beachside Comprehensive (l98l), Stephen J. Ball
examines the internal organisation of a comprehensive school. At Beachside a system of banding was introduced for first-year
students. Students were placed in one of three bands on the basis of information supplied by their primary schools. The first band
was supposed to contain the most able students, and the third band the least able. However, Ball found that factors other than
academic criteria were influential in determining the bands in which the children were placed. In particular, for students of similar
measured ability, those whose fathers were non-manual workers had the greatest chance of being placed in the top band.

Ball observed that most students were conformist and eager when they first entered the school, but gradually the behaviour of the
children began to diverge. He attributed this process to teachers’ stereotypical views of the different bands. Band one was seen
as likely to be hard working, dedicated and well behaved. Band three was not expected to be particularly troublesome, but the
students were expected to have learning problems. Band two was expected to be the most difficult to teach and the least
cooperative. According to Ball, the effect of these views was a progressive deterioration in the behaviour of most band two
students, which was reflected in higher levels of absence, more non-conformist behaviour and a lack of effort being put into
homework.

As a result of teacher expectations, different bands tended to be taught in different ways and encouraged to follow different
educational routes. Band one students were ‘warmed-up’: they were encouraged to have high aspirations and to follow 0 level
courses in subjects with a high academic status. In contrast, band two children were ‘cooled-out’ and directed towards more
practical subjects and towards the lower-level GSE exams. The end result was that band two students were much less likely than
their band one counterparts to take 0 levels, to stay on at school after the age of l6, or to take A levels.

Ball admits that not all band two children failed. Some were able to overcome the difficulties that placement in this band produced.
Nevertheless, there was a strong relationship between banding and performance. Given that there was also a strong relationship
between social class and banding, Ball claims ‘working-class students tend to percolate downwards in the processes of academic
and behavioural differentiation’.

Nell Keddie – Streaming and Classroom Knowledge: While Ball examined the workings of a banding system, a study by Nell
Keddie (I973) looked at the operation of streaming in a large London comprehensive school. As well as looking at the classification
and evaluation of students, Keddie studied the ways in which knowledge was evaluated and classified.

Keddie discovered that knowledge defined by teachers as appropriate to the particular course was considered worthwhile;
knowledge from the student’s experience which did not fit this definition was considered of little consequence. Knowledge
presented in an abstract and general form was considered superior to particular pieces of concrete information. The knowledge
made available to students depended on the teacher’s assessment of their ability to handle it. Thus, those students who were
defined as bright were given greater access to highly valued knowledge.

Like other researchers, Keddie found a relationship between perceived ability and social class. Students were streamed into three
groups in terms of their perceived ability. There was a tendency for students from higher-status white-collar backgrounds to be
placed in the ‘A’ stream, and for those from semi-skilled and unskilled manual backgrounds to be relegated to the ‘C’ stream.

Keddie observed the introduction of a new humanities course designed for all ability levels. Despite the fact that all streams were
supposed to be taught the same material in the same way, Keddie found that teachers modified their methods and the information
they transmitted, depending on which stream they were teaching. There was a tendency to withhold ‘higher-grade’ knowledge
from ‘C’ stream students. Some teachers allowed the ‘C’ stream students to make more noise and do less work than those in the
‘A’ stream.

David Hargreaves – Streaming and Student Subcultures: In an early study of a secondary modern school, David Hargreaves
(I967) related the emergence of subcultures to labelling and streaming. Students labelled as ‘troublemakers' were placed in lower
streams; those whose behaviour was more acceptable were placed in higher streams. Those with negative labels attached to
them had been defined as failures: first, by being placed in a secondary modern school, which was seen as a second-rate
institution; and second, through the streaming system. Many teachers regarded them as no more than ‘worthless louts‘. Faced
with the problem of being unable to achieve high Status within the school, such students attempted to protect; their sense of worth
and retain a positive self-concept

Students labelled as troublemakers tended to seek out each other’s company, and within their group awarded high status to those
who broke the school rules. Thus, disrupting lessons, giving cheek to teachers, failing to hand in homework, cheating and playing
truant all brought prestige. According to Hargreaves, two distinctive subcultures emerged within the school: the conformists and
the non-conformist delinquents.

Mairtin Mac an Ghaill - masculine identities: Mairtin Mac an Ghaill (I994) studied Year 11 students in Parnell School (not its
real name), a largely working-class comprehensive in the West Midlands. He identified three working-class male peer groups,
each with its own definition of masculine identity and its own subculture. These groups developed in response to: *the way
students were organised into sets *the curriculum they followed *the teacher-student relations which resulted from the
above *the students’ position within the working class *the changes in the labour market, for example the rapid decline
in unskilled and semi-skilled manual jobs

The three groups Mac an Ghaill identified were:

2. Academic Achievers the ‘academic successes’ in the top sets. They were highly regarded by teachers and expected to do well.
They looked forward to upward social mobility and a professional career. Since academic qualifications were seen as the route .to
high occupational status, they were positive about the school curriculum. Academic Achievers tended to have skilled working-
class backgrounds.

3. New Enterprisers -They too saw the curriculum in a positive light, but in their case it was a vocational curriculum with subjects
like business studies and technology. They saw their future in the high-skilled sector of the labour market.

Robin Usher and Richard Edwards - Postmodernism and Education : Education and modernity

In their book Postmodernism and Education (l994) Robin Usher and Richard Edwards discuss the implications of postmodernism
for education. They start by arguing that Education is very much the dutiful child of the Enlightenment and, as such, tends to
uncritically accept a set of assumptions deriving from the Enlightenment. They refer to the work of Lyotard, the leading proponent
of postmodernism. who believed that. from the modern perspective. education promised to liberate the whole of humanity from
ignorance and backwardness. According to the promises of modernity. education would help to spread the rational and scientific
beliefs that would free people from the grip of tradition and superstition. Individuals had always had the potential to think for
themselves and to make rational decisions, but they were prevented from doing this in premodern societies by the influence of
superstition and tradition. According to Usher and Edwards. the task of education under modernity was ‘one of “bringing out”. of
helping to realize this potential, so that subjects became fully autonomous and capable of exercising their individual and intentional
agency’. Within modernity. education is the key to developing individuals and. in doing so. making social progress possible.

If it is unclear what postmodernism, postmodernity and the postmodern are, it is clearer what they are against. They are opposed
to any belief that there is a firm foundation to knowledge; they are critical of any attempt to impose one version of the truth on
people; and they are against believing that science and rationality can solve all human problems. Thus, Usher and Edwards say,
‘postmodernism teaches us to be sceptical of foundationalism in all its forms, of totalizing and definitive explanations and theories
and thus of the dominant taken-for-granted paradigms in education, whether these be liberal, conservative or progressive’.
Postmodernism would therefore be suspicious of grand claims such as the following: *Human potential can be achieved through
education. *Education can produce shared values and social solidarity. * Education can produce equality of opportunity
and a just society.

To Usher and Edwards, postmodernism also denies that there is any single best curriculum that should be followed in schools. If
there is no one set of truths that can be accepted, then there is no basis for saying that one thing should be taught in all schools
whereas other things should be excluded. Instead, Usher and Edwards argue that education should teach many different things
and should accept that there can be different truths. Rather than providing any definitive blueprint for education, postmodernism
simply suggests there should be no attempt to impose one set of ideas on all education.

Evaluation of Postmodernism and Education

Because postmodernists are anxious to attack all grand theories (or metanarratives), they try to avoid claiming that their approach
is a coherent theory at all. It is largely based upon criticising other approaches. Nevertheless, postmodernists are unable to avoid
putting forward some of their own views, but it is often unclear what exactly they are trying to say. For example, there is often
ambiguity over whether they are describing changes in the education system or advocating change in a particular direction, or
both.

It can be argued that, whichever is being claimed, there are serious problems with their analysis. For example, if their ideas are
seen as descriptions of actual changes in education, then they may be inaccurate. Developments in the British education system
have in some respects (such as the National Curriculum) involved the centralisation of power in the hands of the government
rather than increased diversity and choice. Some social scientists question whether policies purportedly designed to achieve
greater consumer choice have actually had such an effect. Postmodernists advance little empirical evidence to support the claim
that adult education has become about choice of lifestyle rather than gaining qualifications for work.