6 Questions
6 Questions
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, as we saw in Chapter
4 “Socialization”, 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 English
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.
The Functions of Education: social integration, social placement, socialization, social and cultural
innovation
Schools ideally perform many important functions in modern society. These include socialization,
social integration, social placement, and social and cultural innovation.
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.
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) (see Chapter 4 “Socialization”). 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 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.
Analyzing educational institutions, processes, and practices within the broader social context.
Examining how social factors such as class, gender, race, and culture influence education and
educational outcomes.
Investigating the impacts of educational policies and reforms on individuals and society.
The government plays a crucial role in realizing the ideology drawn collectively by Filipinos through
various means:
Implementing policies and laws that reflect the values and aspirations of Filipino society.
Providing social services and infrastructure to support the well-being and development of citizens.
Promoting national identity and cultural heritage through education, media, and public events.
Fostering economic growth and social progress to fulfill the needs and desires of the Filipino people.
Facilitating participatory governance and democratic processes to ensure that citizens have a voice
in shaping their collective destiny.
Kohlberg's Theory: Focuses on the development of moral reasoning through stages, progressing
from pre-conventional to conventional to post-conventional morality. It emphasizes the importance
of reasoning and justification in moral decision-making.
Piaget's Approach: Emphasizes the role of social interactions and cognitive development in shaping
moral understanding. Piaget proposed that children go through stages of moral development, from
heteronomous morality to autonomous morality, as they mature cognitively and interact with their
social environment.
4. Misinterpretation of the Concept of "Educational Life":
The concept of "educational life" might be misinterpreted when it is narrowly equated with formal
schooling or academic achievement. In reality, educational life encompasses a broader range of
experiences, including informal learning, life skills development, and personal growth. Viewing
education solely through the lens of formal institutions overlooks the significance of lifelong learning
and the diverse ways individuals acquire knowledge and skills.
Filipino values and ideology provide a framework for understanding one's place in society and
shaping personal identity. By embracing and embodying Filipino values such as bayanihan
(community spirit), pakikisama (harmony), and pagkamakabayan (love of country), individuals
contribute to a collective sense of identity and belonging. Furthermore, Filipino ideology, which
includes principles of democracy, social justice, and cultural pride, fosters a shared vision of a better
future and inspires collective action towards common goals.
Values serve as guiding principles that influence our attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors in various
aspects of life. They shape our decisions, relationships, and interactions with others, as well as our
sense of purpose and fulfillment. Whether consciously or unconsciously, values inform how we
prioritize goals, resolve conflicts, and navigate ethical dilemmas. By aligning our actions with our
core values, we foster integrity, authenticity, and meaning in our lives.