Functionalist Theory

Society relies on its institutions, and the role of school is to teach the values and behaviors
needed to be productive members of society. Education is necessary for public survival.
Within this framework, students are the learners and teachers are the instructors. The
educational system is made up of a variety of social groups (e.g., teachers, administrators, and
students). Each group is expected to perform in a certain manner by following prescribed
codes of behavior, and the expectations of behaviors for young adolescents can be quite strict.
Two studies by Coleman (1961, 1966) investigated the socialization process of the adolescent
population. It was discovered that the secondary socialization of adolescents has a “life of its
own” (Froelich, p. 82), which is intimately connected to society as a whole. Coleman’s second
study addressed the issues of achievement within a racially diverse population. To this day,
Coleman’s research underlines the connection between education and politics.

Conflict Theory

The most noteworthy predecessors of conflict theory in education are Karl Marx and Max
Weber. According to conflict theory, knowledge and skills are best acquired when a learner
needs them. This can be accomplished in and out of the classroom. Student empowerment is
key. Conflict theory also recognizes the tensions that exist between groups and individuals.
According to Froehlich, such tensions can isolate the “haves” from the “have nots,” and these
tensions will not be alleviated until change is brought about by force. The economic disparities
between schools have brought about various efforts to marginalize the educational system.
Consider the busing issue of the 1970s, or the attempts at even tax distribution in the 1990s.
Today, it is quite likely we will see the issue of school vouchers (a longstanding political
wedge issue) to once again predominate the headlines.

Interactionist Theory

Interactionist theory is often perceived as a combination of functionalist theory and conflict

theory. School efficiency is achieved when students are allowed to learn at a pace that is
comfortable and manageable. Students are empowered to attain their fullest potential. This
theory also addresses the consequences that can result from a educational system the has the
responsibility of teaching students who represent a variety of socioeconomic and cultural
backgrounds. As such, this discussion is not complete without addressing the hidden
curriculum, which entails educational “givens” that send inadvertent messages. These
messages may lead to hidden learning results. According to Froehlich, “Certain types of
knowledge are valued over other types of knowledge” (p. 85). Students who retain the correct
knowledge will attain academic success. The hidden curriculum involves teaching towards a
“cultural capital” that is not accessible to all students. Can you think of any examples?

What is Our Role?

Teachers and students relate to their environment through their actions (dress, diet, music,
body language, etc.). Role-playing provides us with a means to interact with others (John
Dewey was a huge advocate of this approach). Consider the roles you play as a teacher. Have
you experienced conflict between these roles? As we have discussed throughout the semester,
schools are complex systems that help us to maintain and advance the world in which we live.
As teachers, I encourage all of us to be familiar with the discourse exhibited by our colleagues
throughout the educational community. Doing so will help us to improve our role in the
workplace. For your weekly assignment, please do the following:

1. Read the sixth chapter of the Froehlich text, which is titled, Sociology of Education:
Major Theories and Their Connection to School Practice.
2. Post a thread (500 words minimum) by 11:59 p.m. on Friday, March 3rd. Do not
attempt to summarize the entire chapter. Instead, try to expand on a particular topic
within the chapter that is of interest to you.
3. By 11:59 p.m. on Sunday, March 5th, please post a response (200 word minimum) to
TWO threads created by your classmates.

As you work on this chapter, please feel free to draw from following statements and questions:

 Discuss the pros and cons of functionalism, conflict, and interaction theory in dealing
with explaining the status quo of public school education on the one hand and calling
for major curricular reforms on the other.
 Discuss the meaning of ‘devaluing’ a person. Give examples where that can happen
during music instruction and find hypothetical solutions to such instances.
 Describe the relative merits of constructivism as a perspective for music education
practice and compare to it current practice as you know it.

Froehlich, H. C. (2007). Sociology for music teachers: Perspectives for practice. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

The functionalist theory

The functionalist theory focuses on the ways that universal education serves the needs of
society. Functionalists first see education in its manifest role: conveying basic knowledge and
skills to the next generation. Durkheim (the founder of functionalist theory) identified the
latent role of education as one of socializing people into society's mainstream. This “moral
education,” as he called it, helped form a more‐cohesive social structure by bringing together
people from diverse backgrounds, which echoes the historical concern of “Americanizing”
immigrants.
Functionalists point to other latent roles of education such as transmission of core values and
social control. The core values in American education reflect those characteristics that support
the political and economic systems that originally fueled education. Therefore, children in
America receive rewards for following schedules, following directions, meeting deadlines, and
obeying authority.
The most important value permeating the American classroom is individualism—the ideology
that advocates the liberty rights, or independent action, of the individual. American students
learn early, unlike their Japanese or Chinese counterparts, that society seeks out and reveres
the best individual, whether that person achieves the best score on a test or the most points on
the basketball court. Even collaborative activities focus on the leader, and team sports single
out the one most valuable player of the year. The carefully constructed curriculum helps
students develop their identities and self‐esteem. Conversely, Japanese students, in a culture
that values community in place of individuality, learn to be ashamed if someone singles them
out, and learn social esteem—how to bring honor to the group, rather than to themselves.
Going to school in a capitalist nation, American students also quickly learn the importance of
competition, through both competitive learning games in the classroom, and through activities
and athletics outside the classroom. Some kind of prize or reward usually motivates them to
play, so students learn early to associate winning with possessing. Likewise, schools overtly
teach patriotism, a preserver of political structure. Students must learn the Pledge of
Allegiance and the stories of the nation's heroes and exploits. The need to instill patriotic
values is so great that mythology often takes over, and teachers repeat stories of George
Washington's honesty or Abraham Lincoln's virtue even though the stories themselves (such as
Washington confessing to chopping down the cherry tree) may be untrue.
Another benefit that functionalists see in education is sorting—separating students on the
basis of merit. Society's needs demand that the most capable people get channeled into the
most important occupations. Schools identify the most capable students early. Those who
score highest on classroom and standardized tests enter accelerated programs and college‐
preparation courses. Sociologists Talcott Parsons, Kingsley Davis, and Wilbert Moore referred
to this as social placement. They saw this process as a beneficial function in society.
After sorting has taken place, the next function of education, networking (making
interpersonal connections), is inevitable. People in high school and college network with those
in similar classes and majors. This networking may become professional or remain personal.
The most significant role of education in this regard is matchmaking. Sociologists primarily
interest themselves in how sorting and networking lead couples together of similar
backgrounds, interests, education, and income potential. People place so much importance on
this function of education that some parents limit their children's options for college to insure
that they attend schools where they can meet the “right” person to marry.
Functionalists point to the ironic dual role of education in both preserving and changing
culture. Studies show that, as students progress through college and beyond, they usually
become increasingly liberal as they encounter a variety of perspectives. Thus, more educated
individuals are generally more liberal, while less educated people tend toward conservatism.
Moreover, the heavy emphasis on research at most institutions of higher education puts them
on the cutting edge of changes in knowledge, and, in many cases, changes in values as well.
Therefore, while the primary role of education is to preserve and pass on knowledge and skills,
education is also in the business of transforming them.
A final and controversial function assumed by education in the latter half of the twentieth
century is replacement of the family. Many issues of career development, discipline, and
human sexuality—once the domain of the family—now play a routine part in school
curriculum. Parents who reject this function of education often choose to home‐school their
children or place them in private schools that support their values.
The conflict theory
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.”
Conflict theorists point to several key factors in defending their position. First, property taxes
fund most schools; therefore, schools in affluent districts have more money. Such areas are
predominantly white. They can afford to pay higher salaries, attract better teachers, and
purchase newer texts and more technology. Students who attend these schools gain substantial
advantages in getting into the best colleges and being tracked into higher‐paying professions.
Students in less affluent neighborhoods that do not enjoy these advantages are less likely to go
to college and are more likely to be tracked into vocational or technical training. They also
represent far higher numbers of minority students.
Conflict theorists contend that not only do the economics favor the white affluent, but so does
school testing—particularly IQ testing, which schools can use to sort students. They argue
that the tests, which claim to test intelligence, actually test cultural knowledge and therefore
exhibit a cultural bias. For example, a question may ask: “Which one of these items belongs in
an orchestra? A. accordion B. guitar C. violin D. banjo.” This question assumes considerable
cultural knowledge, including what an orchestra is, how it differs from a band, and what
instruments comprise an orchestra. The question itself assumes exposure to a particular kind of
music favored by white upper classes. Testing experts claim they have rid modern exams of
such culturally biased questioning, but conflict theorists respond that cultural neutrality is
impossible. All tests contain a knowledge base, and that knowledge base is always culturally
sensitive.
Conflict theorists see education not as a social benefit or opportunity, but as a powerful means
of maintaining power structures and creating a docile work force for capitalism.
The symbolic interactionist theory
Symbolic interactionists limit their analysis of education to what they directly observe
happening in the classroom. They focus on how teacher expectations influence student
performance, perceptions, and attitudes.
Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson conducted the landmark study for this approach in
1968. First, they examined a group of students with standard IQ tests. The researchers then
identified a number of students who they said would likely show a sharp increase in abilities
over the coming year. They informed the teachers of the results, and asked them to watch and
see if this increase did occur. When the researchers repeated the IQ tests at the end of the year,
the students identified by the researchers did indeed show higher IQ scores. The significance
of this study lies in the fact that the researchers had randomly selected a number of average
students. The researchers found that when the teachers expected a particular performance or
growth, it occurred. This phenomenon, where a false assumption actually occurs because
someone predicted it, is called a self‐fulfilling prophesy. For example, the stock market may
be stable with rising values. If investors become afraid that the market will crash, however,
they may suddenly sell their stocks, which causes the market to crash. The crash occurred
simply because investors feared it would do so.
Ray Rist conducted research similar to the Rosenthal‐Jacobson study in 1970. In a
kindergarten classroom where both students and teacher were African American, the teacher
assigned students to tables based on ability; the “better” students sat at a table closer to her, the
“average” students sat at the next table, and the “weakest” students sat at the farthest table.
Rist discovered that the teacher assigned the students to a table based on the teacher's
perception of the students' skill levels on the eighth day of class, without any form of testing to
verify the placement. Rist also found that the students the teacher perceived as “better”
learners came from higher social classes, while the “weak” students were from lower social
classes.
Monitoring the students through the year, Rist found that the students closer to the teacher
received the most attention and performed better. The farther from the teacher a student sat,
the weaker that student performed. Rist continued the study through the next several years and
found that the labels assigned to the students on the eighth day of kindergarten followed them
throughout their schooling.
While symbolic‐interactionist sociologists can document this process, they have yet to define
the exact process of how teachers form their expectations or how students may communicate
subtle messages to teachers about intelligence, skill, and so forth.