'Some sociologists, such as functionalists, claim that the education system is based on

meritocratic principles and provides all pupils with the opportunity to succeed. Pupils,
whatever their background, are objectively assessed through the examination process.
Other sociologists claim that meritocracy is a myth. The education system ensures that ex-
isting social inequalities are reproduced in each generation.’

evaluate the view that the education system is meritocratic.

The idea of meritocracy states that the system rewards individual ability and efforts based on how
hard are they working. Functionalists argue that at in school students are judged by universalistic
values, so it is more meritocratic than at home where children are judged by different particularistic
values. Functionalists Davis and Moore state that we live in a meritocratic society as the education
system acts as a role allocating mechanism to ensure individuals do the right jobs . Therefore, indi-
viduals that work hard will be rewarded in society, whilst those who do not will not be rewarded.

An idea of cultural deprivation supports meritocratic view on education. Schools offer children
equality of opportunity and so are fair, it’s the inferior values of working-class parents such as im-
mediate gratification that stops them achieving. Working class ‘subcultures’ are deficient and to
blame for their children’s educational failure. Therefore, having inferior values and views is likely
to put you into disadvantage in life. Lack of parental interest might discourage a child for achieving
success in school, for example: working class parents might be less able to help with child’s home-
work or with providing needed resources. Therefore, cultural deprivation might badly affect child’s
education level. Although, bad background doesn’t guarantee an academical fail for a student as the
school reward is based on students efforts, if a non-privileged student works harder than a privi-
leged student, the idea of meritocracy would argue that a privileged student would become more
successful in life.

However there is evidence that goes against the idea of meritocracy in education, for example: Cor-
respondence principle-In state school children are taught to obey authority and accept hierarchy
rather than to use their talents to achieve. Education system as being subservient to and performing
functions for the Bourgeoisie, the capitalist class who own the means of production: the Bour-
geoisie require a workforce that is hardworking, accepts authority, and who won’t kick up a fuss if
they are exploited, and the main function of school in capitalist societies is to indoctrinate children
into these norms and values. The education system does this through the hidden curriculum – which
consists of the things pupils learn through the experience of attending school, rather than the stated
education objectives in the ‘formal curriculum’. In a study based on 237 members of the senior year
of a New York high school, Bowles and Gintis found that the grades awarded related more to per-
sonality traits rather than academic ability: low grades were related to creativity, aggressiveness and
independence, while higher grades were related to perseverance, consistency and punctuality, which
isn't meritocratic.

Capitalism has split educational institutions where some get higher funding, positioning themselves
as private education which is usually more affordable to middle class, creating a division in educa-
tion where one institution receives more money than the other one. Middle class parents have al-
ways been more able than working class parents to use their skills to get their kids into the best
schools, thus there is not real equality of opportunity. Because these schools exist and have better
funding and more money they can afford the best things to help students do well. Therefore, a child
grown up in a privileged environment are more likely to receive better level of education based on a
quality of an institution contradicting an idea of meritocracy.

Pupil premium encourages schools to accept more students from poor backgrounds, helping to com-
bat selection by mortgage, which is not meritocratic. Therefore, it improves education outcomes for
disadvantaged pupils in schools in England. Evidence shows that disadvantaged children generally
face additional challenges in reaching their potential at school and often do not perform as well as
other pupils contradicting the idea of meritocracy. Furthermore, Teachers are more likely to nega-
tively label boys, working class and Black Caribbean children as problem students, meaning they
are held back through being put in lower bands even if they are intelligent and capable of achieving
high grades. This means that teachers attitude is very important regarding the success of the student
which is not meritocratic as teachers might put more interest into people who aren't really the most
hardworking.

In conclusion, I think that British educational system isn't meritocratic as people from different en-
vironment aren’t equal as some schools provide more quality education than others. Furthermore, if
a student is really hardworking but the teacher doesn't like students personality, the student might
be less interested in education as a good relationship with a teacher is really important for educa-
tion. Many teachers don't value students based on their achievements but on their personal traits
which counters meritocracy in education.