FUNCTIONS OF EDUCATION

Functional theory stresses the functions that education serves in fulfilling a society’s various needs. Perhaps the most important function of
education is socialization. If children need to learn the norms, values, and skills they need to function in society, then education is a
primary vehicle for such learning. Schools teach the three Rs, as we all know, but they also teach many of the society’s norms and values.
In the United States, these norms and values include respect for authority, patriotism (remember the Pledge of Allegiance?), punctuality,
individualism, and competition. Regarding these last two values, American students from an early age compete as individuals over grades
and other rewards. The situation is quite the opposite in Japan, where, children learn the traditional Japanese values of harmony and
group belonging from their schooling (Schneider & Silverman, 2010). They learn to value their membership in their homeroom, or kumi,
and are evaluated more on their kumi’s performance than on their own individual performance. How well a Japanese child’s kumi does is
more important than how well the child does as an individual.
A second function of education is social integration. For a society to work, functionalists say, people must subscribe to a common set of
beliefs and values. As we saw, the development of such common views was a goal of the system of free, compulsory education that
developed in the 19th century. Thousands of immigrant children in the United States today are learning English, U.S. history, and other
subjects that help prepare them for the workforce and integrate them into American life. Such integration is a major goal of the English-
only movement, whose advocates say that only Engli sh should be used to teach children whose native tongue is Spanish, Vietnamese, or
whatever other language their parents speak at home. Critics of this movement say it slows down these children’s education and weakens
their ethnic identity (Schildkraut, 2005).
A third function of education is social placement. Beginning in grade school, students are identified by teachers and other school
officials either as bright and motivated or as less bright and even educationally challenged. Depending on how they are identified, children
are taught at the level that is thought to suit them best. In this way they are prepared in the most appropriate way possible for their later
station in life. Whether this process works as well as it should is an important issue, and we explore it further when we discuss school
tracking shortly.
Social and cultural innovation is a fourth function of education. Our scientists cannot make important scientific discoveries and our
artists and thinkers cannot come up with great works of art, poetry, and prose unless they have first been educated in the many subjects
they need to know for their chosen path.
Education also involves several latent functions, functions that are by-products of going to school and receiving an education rather than a
direct effect of the education itself. One of these is child care. Once a child starts kindergarten and then first grade, for several hours a day
the child is taken care of for free. The establishment of peer relationships is another latent function of schooling. Most of us met
many of our friends while we were in school at whatever grade level, and some of those friendships endure the rest of our lives. A final
latent function of education is that it keeps millions of high school students out of the full-time labor force. This fact keeps the
unemployment rate lower than it would be if they were in the labor force.

Education and Inequality

Conflict theory does not dispute most of the functions just described. However, it does give some of them a different slant and talks about
various ways in which education perpetuates social inequality (Hill, Macrine, & Gabbard, 2010; Liston, 1990). One example involves the
function of social placement. As most schools track their students starting in grade school, the students thought by their teachers to be
bright are placed in the faster tracks (especially in reading and arithmetic), while the slower students are placed in the slower tracks; in
high school, three common tracks are the college track, vocational track, and general track.

Such tracking does have its advantages; it helps ensure that bright students learn as much as their abilities allow them, and it helps ensure
that slower students are not taught over their heads. But, conflict theorists say, tracking also helps perpetuate social inequality by locking
students into faster and lower tracks. Worse yet, several studies show that students’ social class and race and ethnicity affect the track into
which they are placed, even though their intellectual abilities and potential should be the only things that matter: white, middle-class
students are more likely to be tracked “up,” while poorer students and students of color are more likely to be tracked “down.” Once they are
tracked, students learn more if they are tracked up and less if they are tracked down. The latter tend to lose self-esteem and begin to think
they have little academic ability and thus do worse in school because they were tracked down. In this way, tracking is thought to be good for
those tracked up and bad for those tracked down. Conflict theorists thus say that tracking perpetuates social inequality based on social
class and race and ethnicity (Ansalone, 2006; Oakes, 2005).
Social inequality is also perpetuated through the widespread use of standardized tests. Critics say these tests continue to be culturally
biased, as they include questions whose answers are most likely to be known by white, middle-class students, whose backgrounds have
afforded them various experiences that help them answer the questions. They also say that scores on standardized tests reflect students’
socioeconomic status and experiences in addition to their academic abilities. To the extent this critique is true, standardized tests
perpetuate social inequality (Grodsky, Warren, & Felts, 2008).

As we will see, schools in the United States also differ mightily in their resources, learning conditions, and other aspects, all of which affect
how much students can learn in them. Simply put, schools are unequal, and their very inequality helps perpetuate inequality in the larger
society. Children going to the worst schools in urban areas face many more obstacles to their learning than those going to well-funded
schools in suburban areas. Their lack of learning helps ensure they remain trapped in poverty and its related problems.

Conflict theorists also say that schooling teaches a  hidden curriculum, by which they mean a set of values and beliefs that support the status
quo, including the existing social hierarchy (Booher-Jennings, 2008). Although no one plots this behind closed doors, our schoolchildren
learn patriotic values and respect for authority from the books they read and from various classroom activities.
Symbolic Interactionism and School Behavior

Symbolic interactionist studies of education examine social interaction in the classroom, on the playground, and in other school venues.
These studies help us understand what happens in the schools themselves, but they also help us understand how what occurs in school is
relevant for the larger society. Some studies, for example, show how children’s playground activities reinforce gender-role socialization.
Girls tend to play more cooperative games, while boys play more competitive sports (Thorne, 1993) (see Chapter 11 “Gender and Gender
Inequality”).

Another body of research shows that teachers’ views about students can affect how much the students learn. When teachers think students
are smart, they tend to spend more time with them, to call on them, and to praise them when they give the right answer. Not surprisingly
these students learn more because of their teachers’ behavior. But when teachers think students are less bright, they tend to spend less time
with them and act in a way that leads the students to learn less. One of the first studies to find this example of a self-fulfilling prophecy was
conducted by Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson (1968). They tested a group of students at the beginning of the school year and told
their teachers which students were bright and which were not. They tested the students again at the end of the school year; not surprisingly
the bright students had learned more during the year than the less bright ones. But it turned out that the researchers had randomly decided
which students would be designated bright and less bright. Because the “bright” students learned more during the school year without
actually being brighter at the beginning, their teachers’ behavior must have been the reason. In fact, their teachers did spend more time
with them and praised them more often than was true for the “less bright” students. To the extent this type of self-fulfilling prophecy
occurs, it helps us understand why tracking is bad for the students tracked down.

Research guided by the symbolic interactionist perspective suggests that teachers’ expectations may influence how much their students
learn. When teachers expect little of their students, their students tend to learn less.

Other research focuses on how teachers treat girls and boys. Several studies from the 1970s through the 1990s found that teachers call on
boys more often and praise them more often (American Association of University Women Educational Foundation, 1998; Jones & Dindia,
2004). Teachers did not do this consciously, but their behavior nonetheless sent an implicit message to girls that math and science are not
for girls and that they are not suited to do well in these subjects. This body of research stimulated efforts to educate teachers about the ways
in which they may unwittingly send these messages and about strategies they could use to promote greater interest and achievement by
girls in math and science (Battey, Kafai, Nixon, & Kao, 2007).
16.2 Sociological Perspectives on Education

Previous
Next
Learning Objectives

1. List the major functions of education.

2. Explain the problems that conflict theory sees in education.
3. Describe how symbolic interactionism understands education.
The major sociological perspectives on education fall nicely into the functional, conflict,
and symbolic interactionist approaches (Ballantine & Hammack, 2009). Table 16.1
“Theory Snapshot” summarizes what these approaches say.
Table 16.1 Theory Snapshot
Theoretical
perspective Major assumptions

Education serves several functions for society. These include (a) socialization, (b) social
integration, (c) social placement, and (d) social and cultural innovation. Latent functions
Functionalism
include child care, the establishment of peer relationships, and lowering unemployment by
keeping high school students out of the full-time labor force.

Education promotes social inequality through the use of tracking and standardized testing
and the impact of its “hidden curriculum.” Schools differ widely in their funding and learning
Conflict theory
conditions, and this type of inequality leads to learning disparities that reinforce social
inequality.

This perspective focuses on social interaction in the classroom, on the playground, and in
Symbolic other school venues. Specific research finds that social interaction in schools affects the
interactionism development of gender roles and that teachers’ expectations of pupils’ intellectual abilities
affect how much pupils learn.
 Key Takeaways

 According to the functional perspective, education helps socialize children and

prepare them for their eventual entrance into the larger society as adults.
 The conflict perspective emphasizes that education reinforces inequality in the
larger society.
 The symbolic interactionist perspective focuses on social interaction in the
classroom, on school playgrounds, and at other school-related venues. Social
interaction contributes to gender-role socialization, and teachers’ expectations may
affect their students’ performance.
 Non-formal learning includes various structured learning situations which do not either have the level
of curriculum, syllabus, accreditationand certification associated with 'formal learning', but have more structure
than that associated with 'informal learning', which typically take place naturally and spontaneously as part of
other activities. These form the three styles of learning recognised and supported by the OECD.[1]
 Examples of non-formal learning include swimming sessions for toddlers, community-based sports programs,
and programs developed by organisations such as the Boy Scouts, the Girl Guides, community or non-
credit adult education courses, sports or fitness programs, professional conference style seminars, and
continuing professional development. [2] The learner’s objectives may be to increase skills and knowledge, as
well as to experience the emotional rewards associated with increased love for a subject or increased passion
for learning
 Formal learning: learning typically provided by an education or training institution, structured (in terms of
learning objectives, learning time or learning support) and leading to certification. Formal learning is intentional
from the learner’s perspective. (Cedefop 2001) [8]
 Informal learning: learning resulting from daily life activities related to work, family or leisure. It is not
structured (in terms of learning objectives, learning time or learning support) and typically does not lead to
 certification. Informal learning may be intentional but in most cases it is not-intentional (or "incidental"/random).
(Cedefop 2001)

Formal vs.
Informal
Education
Formal education is classroom-based, provided by trained teachers.
Informal education happens outside the classroom, in after-school
programs, community-based organizations, museums, libraries, or at
home.

What are the main differences between the two?

 In general, classrooms have the same kids and the same

teachers every day. After-school programs are often drop-in, so
attendance is inconsistent, as is leadership. 

 Classroom activities can last several days. After-school

programs need to complete an activity each day because a
different group of kids could be in attendance tomorrow. 

 You can assume that classroom-based teachers have a certain

level of training in educational philosophy, effective teaching
strategies, classroom management, and content. After-school
providers, by contrast, vary in experience and knowledge of
teaching techniques, content expertise, and group
management. Typically, materials for after-school settings need
to include a lot more structure. 

 Teachers need to meet educational standards and stick to a

specified curriculum, which can make it difficult for them to
incorporate nontraditional content. After-school programs, on
the other hand, can be more flexible with their content.

Both formal and informal education settings offer different strengths to

your educational outreach project. If your project fits in the classroom,
it can have a very long life; teachers will use trusted resources for years.
After-school programs offer a different kind of environment, where your
activities don't need to be as formal and where you can reach a different
audience.

While both schools and after-school programs serve students, many kids
who feel disenfranchised at school blossom in after-school settings. Real
learning can happen in a setting where kids feel less intimidated or more
comfortable than they do in a formal classroom. The ultimate goal is
that their success in an informal setting can lead to greater confidence
in the formal classroom.

An additional benefit of developing materials for informal educational

settings is that they may be useful to parents at home with their kids, or
to adult learners who are looking to expand their knowledge, either for
their own enrichment or to increase their career options.