ITEM: X

Functionalists see education as an important agency of socialisation

playing a key role in preparing young people for adulthood and working
life, and improving life chances to upward social mobility. All those who
have the ability and talent and put in the effort have an equal chance of
success. The grading of pupils by test and exam results benefits the
economy by ensuring that the most talented and qualified individuals are
allocated to the most important jobs in a meritocratic society.

Applying material from the item and your own knowledge, evaluate
functionalist approaches to the role of education in society. (30 marks)

According to functionalists, societies are meritocratic and perform on

inevitable functions. Functionalists believe the role of education conditions
children through a hidden curriculum in order to become a well qualified
workforce where status can be gained with equal opportunity.
Marxists state that the hidden curriculum does prepare students to become a
well qualified workforce, however they argue that it is not for social solidarity,
it instead is for social inequality because students blindly accept capitalistic
values.

One way functionalist approaches are useful to explain the role of education
in society is through socialisation and social solidarity. As item X indicates
‘functionalists see education as an important agency of socialisation’.
Durkheim argued that social solidarity performed from educational institutes
allowed students to be prepared for wider society through educating them
with cultural values through the hidden curriculum and PSHE. Educational
institutions do this through things such as revision for exams such as GCSE
and A-Levels, and aiming for the highest grades and best uni’s/college’s.
These values are similarly followed by society where you have to stay
disciplined during training courses or work and aim for the highest wages
and best firms. Therefore this shows the usefulness of functionalist
approaches to explain the role of education in society.
Althusser supports the idea that pupils are socialised, but it is to develop the
legitimation of social inequality. Marxists argue that education encourages
students to blindly accept capitalistic values through the hidden curriculum
through a hierarchical structure such as the head teacher at the top followed
by teachers, and then students at the bottom of the hierarchy; this
hierarchical structure is portrayed in society where in work there is a boss at
the top followed by supervisors, and then workers at the bottom of the
hierarchy. Therefore this shows that functionalist approaches are not holistic
enough to explain the role of education in society.

Another way functionalist approaches are useful to explain the role of

education in society is through developing human capital. According to item
X ‘the grading of pupils by test and exam results benefits the economy by
ensuring that the most talented and qualified individuals are allocated to the
most important jobs in a meritocratic society’. Schultz argued that education
systems developed human capital and prepared them by gathering
qualifications to ensure there’s a trained workforce. The relevance of this is
that the education system prepares students to become a well trained
workforce through providing them with the transferable skills such as
punctuality by attending school and lessons on time which is replicated in the
workforce by attending work on time and acceptable hairstyles at school that
will be judged in the workplace. Therefore this shows that functionalist
approaches are useful to explain the role of education in society through
human capital.
Marxists argue that the education system reproduces social inequality.
Althusser argues that the education system causes working class failure in
order to create an unqualified workforce because the working class do not
have enough external backing such as cultural and economic capital to help
them excel educationally which means they don’t have the same foundations
as middle class to place them in positions of power. Therefore, showing
functionalist approaches are partially useful to explain the role of education in
society, however they miss out on individual differences that can’t be solved
through meritocratic policies.

Contradictingly, marxists contrast functionalist approaches by stating that the

role of education is to discriminate against the working class and be in favour
of the middle class. Bowles and Gintis introduced the myth of meritocracy
theory, which argues that education claims to be meritocratic, however
discriminates against the working class in order to empower the middle class
through the hidden curriculum and pshe. Educational institutes use
elaborated code and middle class values and norms. Elaborated code means
they use a wide range of extended and simple vocabulary, whereas the
middle class use restricted code and have their own values and norms.
Restricted code means they use a restricted amount of vocabulary. Therefore
this discriminates against the working class because they are being taught
that their way of socialisation and living is incorrect and they have to rebuild
their way of life in order to be socially accepted, whereas the middle class are
being told their way of life is correct and they aren’t needing to relearn their
way of life as they are the model of the socially accepted individual. Therefore
this shows that functionalist approaches are not useful to explain the role of
education in society.
On the other hand, Parson argues that meritocracy is shown through
statuses, in school everyone is treated equally, therefore meaning that
working class ascribed statuses shift away and they are treated as an equal
individual with universalistic values. Therefore this suggests that functionalist
approaches for the role of education in society is useful.
Similarly, Marxists and Functionalists both agree that the role of education is
to prepare pupils for the future workforce. Marxists suggest this is through
the correspondence principle whereas Functionalists suggest this is through
role allocation. The correspondence principle consists of discipline of
consequences, and argues that pupils learn norms and values in order to
apply it to the real world and gain an achieved status. Role allocation is the
function of selecting people for the social hierarchy and how they’ll perform in
life. The correspondence principle is reflected in education through school
rules and punishments such as expulsion; and in the real world shown
through office rules and punishments such as being dismissed from the
workplace. Role allocation is reflected in education through achievements
and sets and streams, the higher the set the more valuable you are viewed as;
and in the real world shown through achievements and the working title you
receive, the higher the ranking the more valuable you are viewed as.
Therefore this shows that functionalist approaches are not the only useful
approach to explain the role of education in society.

Concludingly the role of education is to reinforce social inequality, evaluatively

proven by marxists by stating that the myth of meritocracy reproduces
inequality between the bourgeoisie and proletariat through the hidden
curriculum. Although functionalists discuss how meritocracy is divulged
through the education system through cultural values of society and that
they are taught and provided with human capital, these are hidden forms of
social inequality because schools don’t allow for working class to reach their
full capability and instead empower the middle class through things such as
the hidden curriculum. Overall, forming the conclusion that functionalist
approaches alone are not useful to explain the role of education in society.
Item J
Functionalist sociologists see religion as having a number of important
functions for individuals and for society. They particularly argue that
religion can promote social cohesion.
Other sociologists, including Marxists and feminists, suggest that religion
has other important, and less positive, functions.
Applying material from Item J and your own knowledge, evaluate the
view that the main function of religion is to promote social cohesion. (20
marks)

One way the function of religion is to promote social cohesion is explained

through the differentiation between the sacred and profane. According to
Item J ‘functionalist sociologists see religion as having a number of important
functions for individuals and for society’. Durkheim introduces one of these
important functions as a collective consciousness. Sacred symbols represent
a society’s collective conscience. This is reinforced through regular religious
rituals such as attending church weekly to worship God or frequently going to
mosque to pray to Allah. Therefore this demonstrates that the main function
of religion is to promote social cohesion because religious rituals maintain
social integration by reminding people that they share a moral view that they
owe loyalty to.
Bellah supports this notion through introducing the theory of civil religion.
One example of this is the ‘American way of life’. The ‘American way of life’
integrates society in a way that churches and religions in America are
incapable of because American religion involves loyalty to the state and
upholding a belief in God. Therefore supporting the fact that one of the main
functions of religion is to promote social cohesion.
Alternatively, conflict theorists argue that one main function of religion is to
maintain the position of the ruling class power, the bourgeoisie. According to
Item J ‘Other sociologists, including Marxists and feminists, suggest that
religion has other important, and less positive, functions’. Engels introduces
one of these less positive functions by comparing socialism and christianity.
Socialism offers salvation in this life by dealing with the suffering of this
current world. Comparingly, Christianity offers salvation in an afterlife by
dealing with the suffering of the real world; Matthew 19:24 ‘it is easier for a
camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the
kingdom of God!’. Therefore this shows that the main function of religion is
not to promote social cohesion because they are encouraging the working
class to deal with the suffering of not being rich, meaning that the
bourgeoisie is maintaining their wealth without the worry of the working
class performing a revolution.
Lenin supports this notion through introducing the theory of Spiritual Gin.
Spiritual Gin is the belief that religion is doled out to the masses by the
bourgeoisie in order to keep the proletariat confused and in their place. This
supports Engels because it states that the bourgeoisie uses religion to
manipulate the masses and prevent the proletariat from overthrowing the
ruling class such as using Christianity to provide false hope for the working
class that they will be eternally rich after death. Therefore this supports that
the main function of religion is not to promote social cohesion.

Functionalists argue that another way the function of religion is to promote

social cohesion is through reinforcing a sense of belonging and social
solidarity. Durkheim uses totemism to explain how religion reinforces a sense
of belonging and social solidarity. Totemism is where people have kinship or a
mystical relationship with a spirit being such as an animal or plant, which is
physically represented through a totem. Durkheim uses the Arunta aboriginal
tribe to demonstrate totemism. In this tribe, bands of kin come together
periodically to worship a sacred totem that represents the clan's origins and
identity. The totem is a representation of society, meaning that when the
Arunta aboriginal tribe are worshipping the totem, they are worshipping
society. Therefore supporting that one main function of religion is to promote
social cohesion.
Hamilton argues that the functionalist view ignores how religion can be the
source of social division. A real world example of this is shown through The
Troubles. The Troubles was a violent outbreak in Northern Ireland between
Protestants and Catholics because Catholics wanted Northern Ireland to be
part of the republic of Ireland and not part of the UK because they were
Protestant, whereas Protestants wanted to remain part of the UK because it
would allow for communion between the Protestants. Therefore arguing
against the fact that religion promotes social cohesion.

Conclusively, the main function of religion is to promote social cohesion. This

is demonstrated through a sense of social solidarity and a collective
conscience. These are shown through religious rituals that maintain social
integration by reminding people that they share a moral view that they owe
loyalty to. However it can be argued that the main function of religion is to
maintain the position of ruling class power. Overall, the main function of
religion is to promote social cohesion through social solidarity, collective
conscience, and many other functions such as civil religion, values and
meanings, and psychological functions.
Applying material from Item J and your own knowledge, evaluate the
extent to which religious beliefs can be a force for social change (20
marks)

One way that religious beliefs can be a force for social change is through its
influence on values, beliefs, and behaviour. According to item J ‘Max Weber
argued that religious beliefs can lead to religious beliefs can lead to important
social changes’. Weber used the protestant reformation and the rise of
capitalism in western europe to demonstrate how religious beliefs and
practices shape economic behaviour. He believed that the protestant work
ethic, that emphasised hard work, thrift, and personal responsibility,
encouraged people to pursue economic success and played a key role in the
rise of capitalism. Therefore this means that religious beliefs can be a force for
social change because they contribute to the rise of capitalism, such as in
western Europe. Furthermore the effects of religious beliefs on social change
can vary across different contexts and time periods.
Tawney critiques Weber’s argument by stating that technological change
caused the birth of capitalism, not religious ideas. This is because it was only
after capitalism that the bourgeoisie adopted calvinist beliefs in order to
legitimate their pursuit of economic gain. Additionally, scholars have argued
that his theory over emphasises the role of ideas and beliefs in driving social
change. They state that economic, political, and social structures play a more
decisive role in shaping social change than cultural or religious beliefs.
Therefore this goes against religious beliefs being a force for social change.

Another way how religious beliefs can be a force for social change is through
addressing social inequality and oppression. Gutierrez developed the concept
of liberation theology. This emphasises the role of religion in inspiring political
activism aimed at addressing social inequality and oppression. Guiterrez
argues that it provides a moral and ideological foundation for social
movements and collective action, as well as resources and support for social
change efforts. Therefore this shows that religion can be a force for social
change because liberation theology challenged the dominant view of religion
as a conservative force, and instead it emphasised its potential to inspire and
support social change. Despite its criticisms for some religious and political
authorities who viewed it as a threat to their power.
Berger criticises that religion is a force for social change because it reinforces
existing power structure and social hierarchies because he saw religion as a
cultural system that reflects and reinforces social structures and values.
Berger draws attention to the ways how religion can reflect and reinforce
existing power dynamics. In addition, Guiterrez’s work highlights the potential
of religious beliefs to motivate and sustain social activism aimed at
addressing social inequality. However it also underscores the challenges and
risks involved in challenging established power structures. Therefore this
shows how religious beliefs can be a force for social change.

Alternative explanations argue that religion serves to maintain social cohesion

and order. According to item J ‘its beliefs can have both a negative impact on
social change and a positive one’. Durkheim suggested that religion provides
a sense of shared identity and values that reinforces social norms and
expectations. In addition he stated that it provides a collective consciousness
and a shared sense of purpose and belonging. Therefore this shows that
religious beliefs aren't a force for social change but serves to maintain social
cohesion and order because it highlights its potential to promote social
stability and cohesion. However it does also raise questions about the role of
religion in maintaining social hierarchies and maintaining inequality.
Wuthnow supports Durkheim’s notion by stating that religious beliefs and
values can influence people’s attitudes and behaviours toward environmental
issues. His research showed the complex relationship between religion and
social change, which highlights the importance of considering both
individual beliefs and organisational structures in understanding the impact
of religion on social issues. In addition, Durkheim’s work provides insight into
the social functions of religion. However it also highlights the need for critical
analysis of its potential to reinforce existing power structures and limit social
change. Therefore this shows that religion can be a force for social change but
through controlling society instead of progressing.

Conclusively, there are valid arguments to show how religion can be a force
for social change through its contribution to capitalism– shown through the
protestant reformation and its effects on western Europe, and through
addressing social inequality and oppression– shown through liberation
theology. However there are consensus theorists that argue religion
maintains social cohesion and social order through providing a collective
consciousness and shared sense of purpose and belonging. Overall religion is
a force for social change alongside other unintended circumstances.
Applying material from Item J and your knowledge, evaluate the view
that the UK is becoming increasingly secular (20 marks)

Studies with regular church attendance shows that the UK is becoming

increasingly secular. According to item J ‘fewer people are attending
churches than ever before and there are smaller numbers of religious
ceremonies such as weddings’. In 1851, Crockett’s study showed that there
were 40% of adults regularly attending church. However, in 1960, Wilson did
another study on regular attendance and showed that 10-15% of adults attend
church regularly. Therefore this shows that the UK is becoming increasingly
secular because over the course of 109 years, 25-30% of regular church
attendees decreased– this shows that through the generations, faith is
decreasing, and that the UK is becoming increasingly secular.
Supporting evidence by the church of England shows that in 1960, there were
1.6 million regular attendees. However in 2013, there were 0.8 million regular
attendees. Therefore supporting the fact that through the generations, the
UK is becoming increasingly secular.

Another way that shows the UK is becoming increasingly secular can be

shown through the introduction of government policies. Civil partnerships is a
government policy that allows two people to get legally married in the state
without having a ceremonial wedding or attending church weddings.
Therefore this shows that the UK is becoming increasingly secular because
there are now alternatives to people getting married, which means that they
are not as or no longer inclined to have a marriage at churches– how it was
done traditionally.
Crockett states that church weddings, baptisms, and Sunday school
attendance has declined. Therefore this supports that the UK is becoming
increasingly secular because individuals are reducing the amount of religious
activities they do.

Alternative explanations state that the UK is not becoming increasingly

secular– due to technological change, people aren’t physically attending their
religious practices but virtually attending. According to item J ‘Others argue
that religion is not losing importance. This only appears to be the case
because the way people interact with religion is changing over time’ Hellend
introduces the idea of religion online. Religion online is where traditional
religious practices, practice religion in person as well as virtually. For example
due Covid-19, a lot, if not all religious practices were encouraged to do their
services via zoom or teams. Therefore this shows that the UK is not becoming
increasingly secular because people are not neglecting their religion but
instead finding a more convenient way for them to interact with their service.
Other sociologists that argue against secularisation state that religion is
becoming more privatised. Davie argues that people are believing without
belonging. This means that more people are becoming reluctant to belong to
religious practices, so they don’t attend them. However they still hold the
same religious beliefs that they did when they were attending. Therefore this
shows that the UK is not becoming increasingly secular.

Conclusively, religion is becoming increasingly secular. This is shown through

statistics of church attendance, and is further encouraged through
government policies. However religion is not becoming increasingly secular at
the rate that is believed– proven through people just changing where they
practise religion to online as it holds more convenience. Overall showing that
the UK is becoming increasingly secular.
Applying material from item D and your knowledge, evaluate the view
that gender roles and relationships within the family are still unequal in
society. 15/20

Evidence proves that gender roles and relationships within the family are still
unequal in society through showing that women are working in and out of
the home. According to item D ‘women still take responsibility for housework
and childcare’. Oakley conducted a study on housework and found that
women are still doing the majority of domestic tasks, despite that women are
working outside the home. Therefore this shows that gender roles and
relationships within the family are still unequal in society because they do
paid labour outside the home, and have to still do most the unpaid labour in
the home, whereas men only have to worry about being the breadmaker, and
don’t do unpaid labour, which reinforces gender inequalities in society.
Despite Oakley making these conclusions from her study, she also criticises
her own study. Oakley (Hochschild has the same viewpoint) argues that there
has been a shift in the way that society views gender and gender roles are
becoming less rigid overtime. It is proven through men increasingly taking on
domestic tasks. Therefore this shows that gender roles and relationships
within the family are still unequal in society, however things are improving.

Fraser argues that gender roles within the family in society because family
reinforces womens lack of power, and men’s rise of power. Fraser states that
despite women’s significant strides in the workplace and the equal pay act,
family reinforces and maintains gender inequality. Therefore this shows that
gender roles and relationships within the family are still unequal in society
because the women may earn more than the man, however; due to the
stereotypes of men being dominant and women being submissive, the male
in the relationship still ensures that the women does most the domestic
labour or attends to his sexual needs at his will. This reproduces gender
inequality.
In 2018, the United Nations released a report that revealed that women
perform the majority of unpaid domestic and care work worldwide and
specifically in the UK, they perform an average of two hours more unpaid
domestic work than men. Therefore this strongly supports that gender roles
and relationships within the family are still unequal in society because it is
proving the clear difference with objective data that women still perform
more domestic labour and it shows that society reinforces womens expressive
role– ‘women perform the majority of unpaid domestic and care work
worldwide’.

Alternative explanations argue that gender roles within the family are
becoming more equal. According to item D ‘men now take on a more
domestic role’. Ortner argues that there has been a shift in the way that
society views gender and that gender roles are becoming less rigid. Therefore
this shows that gender roles and relationships within the family are not
unequal in society because men are beginning to take on traditional female
roles within the family which shows that the domestic labour in a household
is becoming more balanced between men and women. Which is proven
through Pew research centre in the US finding that fathers now spend more
time on childcare than in the past– 2.5 hours a week to 7.3 hours a week
(1965–2016). Therefore this shows that gender roles in relationships within the
family are not unequal in society.
There is supporting evidence to suggest that men are becoming more
involved in domestic tasks. In 2019, the ONS found that the proportion of men
who do housework has increased from 62% to 69% (2000-2015). Therefore this
shows that gender roles in relationships within the family are not unequal in
society.
Conclusively, gender roles in relationships within the family are unequal in
society. Despite there being improvement in the share of domestic labour,
the changes are not as drastic as sociologists make them seem. Women still
perform the majority of domestic tasks and have to balance labour work and
domestic labour, whereas men only have to balance labour work and proceed
to let out their frustration in the household. Overall showing that gender roles
in relationships within the family are still unequal in society.
Applying material from Item B and your knowledge, evaluate the view
that differences in crime rates between ethnic groups are mainly the
result of the way the criminal justice system operates
- The way the criminal justice system operates causes these differences
- External factors cause these differences

Some sociologists argue that the differences in crime rates between ethnic
groups are mainly the result of the way the criminal justice operates as police
forces are racist so they alter evidence in order to arrest ethnic minorities or
they purposely target them. Whereas other groups such as Left realists argue
that issues such as relative deprivation or their neighbourhood can cause
crime because they adopt the knowledge and norms of a criminal, which
turns into them committing crime, and as they are already targeted, they get
caught more.

One way that differences in crime rates between ethnic groups are mainly the
result of the way the criminal justice system operates is shown through police
targeting. According to item B ‘Black people are more likely to be stopped
and searched by the police’. Phillips and Browning argue that ethnic
minorities are over-policed, however they are under-protected. Therefore this
shows that the differences in crime rates between ethnic groups are mainly
the result of the way the criminal justice system operates is because if they
are being over policed due to stereotypes by things such as more frequent
stop and searching, then the crime rates will rise because overtime ethnic
minorities will adopt and internalise this label of being a ‘stereotypical
criminal’, and cause more crime because ‘if you’re known as something, you
become that something’; whereas ethnic majorities aren’t as likely to be
caught.
Supportingly, sociologists argue that targeting is caused by moral panics. For
example the Black Muggers moral panic of 1970 was based on criminality. This
then caused the state to over-police black people because they were known
as the ‘prime suspects’ in 1970. Therefore showing that the differences in
crime rates between ethnic groups are mainly the result of the way the
criminal justice system operates because overtime black people lived up to
their stereotype due to being constantly labelled, resulting in them causing
more crime and getting caught as they were already over-policed.

Another way that differences in crime rates between ethnic groups are mainly
the result of the way the criminal justice system operates is shown through
institutional racism. Holdaway argues this through canteen culture. This is
where officers aren’t racist, however when they’re together they reinforce the
stereotypes that are acted on duty. Therefore this shows that the differences
in crime rates between ethnic groups are mainly the result of the way the
criminal justice system operates because when they’re on duty they are
‘scouting’ for ethnic minorities and not ethnic majorities, so even if they’re not
committing as much crime compared to white people, they are more likely to
be caught, which results in a crime rate differences as they are being caught
more.
The Macpherson report identified a number of racist practices and attitudes
within the police force such as, failing to understand and respond to the
needs of ethnic minority communities. This shows that the differences in
crime rates between ethnic groups are mainly the result of the way the
criminal justice system operates because they already have racist typifications
about ethnic minorities, which means that they are more likely to be caught
in crime and not taken care of or properly investigated when being accused.
Alternatively, Left Realists argue that the main reason for the difference in
crime rates between ethnic groups is mainly the result of the way ethnic
minorities are raised and socialised. According to item B ‘Left realists highlight
issues such as relative deprivation as a cause of crime’. Lea and Young argue
that ethnic minorities suffer from marginalisation and relative deprivation,
whereas ethnic majorities don’t have to deal with these problems. Therefore
this shows that the main reason for the difference in crime rates between
ethnic groups is mainly the result of the way ethnic minorities are raised and
socialised because these ethnic minorities then form subcultures that help to
alleviate this feeling of being marginalised through commiting crime and
making crime a norm–– and as they are already targeted by the state, they are
more likely to be caught, which affects crime rates.
Sewell supports this through explaining that ethnic minorities, such as black
people deal with negative experiences due to the white culture. Therefore this
leads to there being a difference in crime rates between ethnic groups
because black males have to deal with consequences of being labelled and
judged by schools and employers, which makes it harder for them to gain
what they want through legitimate means, resulting in them turning to crime
in order for them to gain their needs and wants– and as they are already
targeted by the state, they are more likely to be caught, which affects crime
rates.

FitzGerald et al argues that Neighbourhood is the reason why there is a

difference in crime rates between ethnic groups. FitzGerald explains that
crime rates are highest in poor areas, which means that very deprived young
people came into contact with affluent groups. The majority ethnicity that
lived in these deprived areas were young black people. Therefore this leads to
there being a difference in crime rates between ethnic groups because young
black people are consuming the knowledge and norms of how to be a
criminal, which means that they act in an antisocial manner– and as they are
already targeted by the state, they are more likely to be caught, which affects
crime rates.
Waddington et al supports this by stating that areas where crime is higher
due to the lack of social cohesion is more populated with ethnic minorities–
this is known as the locality theory. Therefore this leads to a difference in
crime rates between ethnic groups because the police are already focusing
where crime rates are high, there are more ethnic minorities in these areas, so
when crime happens the ethnic minorities are focused on– the ethnic
majorities aren’t.

Conclusively, the difference in crime rates between ethnic groups are mainly
the result of ethnic minority upbringing alongside the racist typifications that
the police force have on ethnic minorities. Due to ethnic minorities
committing crime more because they have been socialised that they can’t
get things through legitimate means, they commit more crime– the police
force already stop and search more ethnic minorities and target them; and
they leave the ethnic majorities. Overall, the difference in crime rates between
ethnic groups is partially the result of the way the criminal justice system
operates.
Applying material from Item C and your knowledge of research methods,
evaluate the strengths and limitations of using participant observation to
investigate anti-school subcultures 18/20

Participant observation is a qualitative research method that involves the

researcher immersing themselves in a particular community to gain deep
understanding of their beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours. This could be useful
in investigating anti-school subcultures (groups of students that reject
mainstream school culture and engage in deviant behaviour).

One strength of using participant observation to investigate anti-school

subcultures is the validity of the findings. According to Item C ‘One way to
study anti-school subcultures is participant observation. This might give a
researcher an insight into pupils' everyday lives.’ Participant observation
allows the researcher to observe the behaviour of the group firsthand and
gain an in-depth understanding of their antisocial norms and why they
behave the way they do such truanting and talking back to authoritative
figures. Therefore this is a strength of using participant observation to
investigate anti-school subcultures because the findings have high validity
due to it being primary data, the researcher has been able to observe the
students behaviours and conversations, meaning that they have an in depth
understanding of why they behave the way they do, resulting in highly valid
primary data.
However, a criticism of this is that observing students without their consent is
unethical– in order to gain organic data on the students, the researcher is
required to covertly observe the students; otherwise the data of the study
could be affected by the Hawthorne effect. This criticises the use of
participant observation because it would affect the validity of the study as
students would overemphasise their beliefs and behaviour to the school or
minimise their beliefs and behaviour to the school, depending on the school.

Another strength of using participant observation to investigate anti-school

subcultures is the development of schools or school policies to prevent anti
school subcultures. According to Item C ‘Willis identified a group who were
anti-school and anti-education’. Willis showed the importance of using
participant observation to investigate anti-school subcultures in his study
‘Learning to Labour: How working class kids get working class jobs’.Through
his observations he found useful data that the boys’ subculture was a
response to their status in the school and society more broadly. Therefore this
shows the usefulness of using participant observation to investigate anti
school subcultures because we found that subcultures can be formed due to
people feeling marginalised, meaning that in the future schools can
generalise this data,making it more representative and try and prevent future
students creating subcultures by being more culturally inclined for example
or trying to understand the students instead of marginalising them.
Interpretivists could then analyse the findings by Willis and try to figure out
the cause for this behaviour, and solve it. This is then beneficial for theories
made by interpretivists as it could lead to more understandings of why
anti-school subcultures behave the way they do. Whereas positivists will not
find this type of data useful as it isn’t used through scientific methods,
therefore meaning that there can’t be objective conclusions drawn.

Alternatively, a limitation of using participant observation to investigate anti

school subcultures is researcher bias and subjectivity. Anti-school subcultures
could be defined in many different ways depending on the culture and
location, this means that what might be a group of students behaving
antisocially one day might just be them having a bad day, however in other
areas that might be an anti-school subcultures depending on gender,
location, and culture– which means that when the findings are published,
they can’t be generalised elsewhere. Furthermore the researchers
interpretation of antisocial behaviour, isn’t going to be the same as other
people’s interpretation of antisocial behaviour. Therefore this limits the
usefulness of using participant observation to investigate anti-school
subcultures because it leads to a distorted understanding of the subculture
being studied and leads to the findings having a lack of
representativeness(what might be true for one school isn’t for another).
Evaluatively, participant observations can also be time consuming and
resource intensive, which means it can be difficult to conduct on a large scale.
This means that if the researcher doesn’t have the financial backing then they
are unable to gather the data in the first place as they can’t travel around to
follow the students– meaning that participant observations could be useful if
researchers have the time and expense, however if not, it would be a wasteful
study.

Conclusively, participant observations are useful to investigate anti-school

subcultures as the data gathered is valid and generalisable, however it is
completely unethical for a researcher to follow around students in order to
gather data if nonconsensual. Overall, participant observation’s benefits
overrule to ethical implications because it allows for future improvement in
the reduction of anti-school subcultures as sociologists can have a true
in-depth understanding of why they are the way they are, and how to prevent
it.
Outline and explain two ways in which fundamentalism can be a force for
conservative change (10 marks)

One way fundamentalism can be a force for conservative change is that it can
provide a sense of stability when society undergoes change. Weber argues
that fundamentalism can provide a source of meaning and stability in times
of social change. An example of this is the rise of evangelical Christianity in
the US (20th century). Evangelical Christians have been associated with
conservative political movements and other social policies, such as opposing
abortion rights and LGBTQ rights. Therefore this shows that fundamentalism
can be a force for conservative change because Evangelical Christians have
used their fundamental religious beliefs of individuals not changing their
bodies that God has given them through restricting freedom of LGBTQ rights
to suit how their religious beliefs are; and aborting a child is murder, which
also goes against their fundamental religious belief of ‘thou shall not murder’
(one of the ten commandments). Overall this shows that Evangelical
Christians have used their traditional religious beliefs in order to maintain
social order to how they see fit, showing how fundamentalism can be a force
for conservative change.

Another way fundamentalism can be a force for conservative change is that it

can be used to maintain social order. This can be proven through third world
fundamentalism. This explains that fundamentalism develops as a reaction to
change which is normally triggered by westernisation. Bruce talks about the
Islamic revolution in Iran. From 1920-1930s, the Shah of Iran (the King of Iran)
introduced western curriculums and companies into the country. By 1970’s
parts of Iran were becoming increasingly westernised by Night clubs, discos,
and Bars. In 1979, society overthrew the Shah and reinstated Islamic Laws, for
example school children recited the Qur’an, instead of reciting the national
anthem. Therefore this shows that fundamentalism can be a force of
conservative change because it shows that when society was becoming
increasingly westernised and less religious, despite the power of the Shah,
society used their fundamental religious beliefs in order to overthrow the
Shah and return Iran back to its traditional values of Islam (removing the bars
and nightclubs) and reintroducing more Mosque’s and encouragement of
studying the Qur’an. Overall this shows that the Iran society used their
traditional beliefs in order to restructure society from its westernised state to
its religious state through using fundamental beliefs, showing that
fundamentalism can be a force for conservative change.
Applying material from Item B and your knowledge, evaluate the
usefulness of functionalist views of the education system in society today.
(30 marks)

The functionalist perspective argues that education in society operates on the

principles of meritocracy and performs essential functions. According to
functionalists, education conditions children through a hidden curriculum,
preparing them to become a well-qualified workforce with equal
opportunities. However, Marxist theorists counter this view, asserting that the
hidden curriculum perpetuates social inequality by promoting unquestioning
acceptance of capitalist values. This essay will evaluate the usefulness of
functionalist views of the education system in society, considering the
perspectives of prominent sociologists and research findings.

One way functionalist approaches are useful in explaining the role of

education in society is through socialisation and social solidarity. Emile
Durkheim argued that education serves as an important agent of
socialisation, fostering a sense of collective consciousness. The hidden
curriculum, including subjects like Personal, Social, Health, and Economic
(PSHE) education, imparts cultural values and prepares students for wider
society. Schools teach discipline, competition, and the pursuit of excellence,
which mirror societal expectations in training courses and workplaces. This
suggests the usefulness of functionalist approaches in explaining the role of
education in promoting social cohesion and unity.
However, Marxist sociologist Louis Althusser challenges the functionalist
perspective by asserting that the hidden curriculum serves to legitimise
social inequality. Althusser argues that the hierarchical structure within
education mirrors the power relations in society, with students blindly
accepting capitalist values. This critique highlights the limitations of
functionalist views, as they may overlook the ways in which the education
system perpetuates social inequalities and reinforces existing power
structures.

Another way functionalist approaches are useful in explaining the role of

education in society is through the development of human capital. According
to functionalists, education systems contribute to the economy by grading
and allocating the most talented and qualified individuals to important jobs.
Research by economist Theodore Schultz supports this perspective, as he
argued that education develops human capital and provides individuals with
transferable skills needed in the workforce. For example, schools instil
punctuality, which is replicated in the workplace. This demonstrates the
usefulness of functionalist approaches in explaining how education prepares
individuals for the labour market.
Marxist theorists challenge the functionalist perspective by highlighting how
the education system reproduces social inequality. Pierre Bourdieu's concept
of cultural capital emphasises that students from privileged backgrounds
have greater access to resources, leading to educational advantages. This
unequal distribution of resources perpetuates social inequalities and
undermines the functionalist idea of meritocracy. Therefore, while
functionalist views explain the role of education in developing human capital,
they fail to address the systemic inequalities and disadvantages faced by
certain social groups.

Contradicting functionalist approaches, Marxist theorists argue that the role

of education is to perpetuate social inequality and favour the middle class.
Bowles and Gintis proposed the myth of meritocracy theory, suggesting that
education claims to be meritocratic but discriminates against the working
class through the hidden curriculum. Educational institutes promote
middle-class values and norms, such as the use of elaborated code, which
disadvantages working-class students who are not familiar with such
language patterns. This critique highlights the limitations of functionalist
approaches in explaining how education reinforces social inequalities.
However, functionalist sociologist Talcott Parsons argues that education
demonstrates meritocracy through the equal treatment of students. In
schools, everyone is treated equally, leading to a shift away from ascribed
statuses, including social class, and a focus on universalistic values. This
suggests that functionalist approaches are useful in explaining how
education promotes equal treatment and meritocracy. Nonetheless, it is
important to consider that Parsons' perspective has been criticised for
neglecting the impact of social class and other structural factors on
educational opportunities and outcomes.

Both functionalists and Marxists agree that education plays a role in

preparing individuals for the future workforce. Marxists argue that this is
achieved through the correspondence principle, where students learn norms
and values that will be applied in the real world to gain an achieved status. On
the other hand, functionalists propose the concept of role allocation, where
individuals are selected and assigned positions in the social hierarchy based
on their achievements and qualifications. While functionalists emphasise the
role of education in matching individuals to appropriate occupational roles,
Marxists highlight how the correspondence principle reproduces social
inequalities.
The correspondence principle aligns with Marxist criticisms of the
functionalist perspective by demonstrating how education perpetuates social
inequality. It suggests that the educational system mirrors and reproduces
the hierarchical structure of society, with working-class students being
disadvantaged in terms of access to resources and opportunities. This critique
underscores the limitations of functionalist views in explaining the complex
dynamics of education and its impact on social mobility.

In conclusion, the usefulness of functionalist views of the education system in

today's society is limited. While functionalist perspectives offer insights into
the role of education in socialisation, social solidarity, and the development of
human capital, they often overlook the perpetuation of social inequalities and
fail to address the diverse needs and experiences of individuals within the
education system. Marxist criticisms shed light on how the hidden
curriculum, power structures, and unequal distribution of resources impact
educational outcomes and reinforce social hierarchies. Therefore, a more
comprehensive understanding of the education system requires considering
alternative perspectives and approaches that acknowledge and address the
complexities of social inequality and individual differences.
Applying material from Item B and knowledge, evaluate the usefulness of
feminists ideas to our understanding of education in UK today

Feminist ideas have significantly contributed to our understanding of

education in the UK today. By examining the gendered nature of educational
systems, challenging traditional norms, and highlighting inequalities,
feminists have shed light on various aspects of education. This essay aims to
evaluate the usefulness of feminist ideas in enhancing our understanding of
education, drawing from the material in Item B and analysing the
perspectives of prominent feminist sociologists.

Feminist ideas provide valuable insights into the gender inequalities that exist
in educational attainment. Sociologist Sue Sharpe conducted research in the
1970s, exploring the aspirations of young girls. Initially, girls prioritised
marriage and family, but as feminist movements gained momentum, their
aspirations shifted towards education and career goals. This highlights the
influence of societal norms and gender roles on educational outcomes.
Sharpe's research demonstrates the usefulness of feminist ideas in
understanding how gender inequalities shape educational aspirations and
opportunities.
Sue Sharpe's research aligns with the feminist perspective and the work of
sociologist Judith Butler. By examining how gender aspirations have evolved
over time, Sharpe demonstrates the influence of societal norms and feminist
movements on educational goals. This analysis supports the usefulness of
feminist ideas in understanding how gender inequalities shape educational
aspirations and opportunities. Judith Butler's concept of gender
performativity further emphasises the social construction of gender roles and
the potential for transformative change in educational settings.
Feminist perspectives also shed light on the hidden curriculum and its role in
perpetuating gender inequalities within educational institutions. Sociologist
Angela McRobbie argues that schools reinforce patriarchal values through
gendered disciplinary practices, curricula, and teaching methods. The hidden
curriculum perpetuates traditional gender roles and expectations, limiting
the opportunities and choices available to students.
Angela McRobbie's work aligns with feminist perspectives and echoes the
insights of feminist sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. McRobbie's analysis of the
hidden curriculum highlights its role in perpetuating gender inequalities
within educational institutions. Bourdieu's concept of cultural capital provides
a framework for understanding how educational practices reinforce
traditional gender norms. By critically examining the hidden curriculum,
feminist ideas and the insights of sociologists like Bourdieu contribute to a
nuanced understanding of the ways in which education perpetuates gender
inequalities.

Moreover, feminist ideas contribute to our understanding of sexual

harassment and gender-based violence in educational settings. Research
indicates a high prevalence of sexual harassment among students, which
creates a hostile learning environment and hinders academic progress.
Feminist sociologist Dorothy Smith emphasises the importance of
intersectionality in understanding these experiences, recognizing that
gender-based violence intersects with other social categories such as race,
class, and sexuality. By exploring the multiple dimensions of gender-based
violence, feminist ideas deepen our understanding of the barriers and
challenges faced by students in educational institutions.
Dorothy Smith's sociological perspective aligns with feminist ideas and
resonates with the work of intersectional feminists such as Patricia Hill Collins
and Kimberlé Crenshaw. Smith's emphasis on intersectionality in
understanding gender-based violence in educational settings recognizes that
multiple social categories intersect to shape these experiences. Collins and
Crenshaw's intersectional frameworks highlight how race, class, and sexuality
intersect with gender to influence students' experiences. By incorporating
intersectionality, feminist ideas and the insights of sociologists contribute to a
comprehensive understanding of the barriers and challenges faced by
students in educational institutions.

However, it is important to consider alternative perspectives and critiques of

feminist ideas regarding education. Functionalist sociologist Talcott Parsons
provides a contrasting view, arguing that the education system promotes
meritocracy and equal opportunities for all individuals, regardless of gender.
According to Parsons, individuals are allocated to different positions in society
based on their abilities and qualifications. This perspective suggests that
gender inequalities in education may be attributed to individual choices and
capabilities rather than structural factors. However, feminist perspectives and
the analysis of sociologists such as Sue Sharpe, Angela McRobbie, and
Dorothy Smith highlight the limitations of the functionalist approach by
underscoring the influence of societal norms, cultural expectations, and
structural inequalities on educational outcomes.
The feminist critique of the functionalist perspective is supported by the work
of sociologist Sue Sharpe. Her research demonstrates that gender aspirations
and educational goals are not solely determined by individual choices but are
shaped by wider societal norms and feminist movements. This challenges the
functionalist notion of equal opportunities and meritocracy, highlighting the
need to consider structural factors that contribute to gender inequalities in
education.
In conclusion, feminist ideas, informed by the insights of sociologists, provide
a valuable framework for understanding education in the UK today. By
examining gender inequalities in educational attainment, analyzing the
hidden curriculum, and addressing gender-based violence, feminist
perspectives contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the
structural and societal factors that influence educational outcomes. While
alternative perspectives exist, the feminist critique of functionalism and the
insights of sociologists like Sue Sharpe, Angela McRobbie, and Dorothy Smith
shed light on the limitations of individualistic explanations and underscore
the importance of addressing systemic inequalities within educational
institutions. By integrating feminist ideas and sociological analysis, we can
work towards creating more inclusive and equitable educational
environments.
Applying material from Item B and your knowledge, evaluate Marxist
views of the role of the education system.
This essay critically evaluates Marxist perspectives on the role of the
education system, examining its connection to social class and capitalism, its
role in reproducing social inequality, and its function as an ideological
apparatus. By analysing the views of sociologists within this framework, we
can assess the strengths and limitations of Marxist theories in understanding
the role of education in society.

Marxist perspectives argue that the education system serves the interests of
the ruling class and perpetuates social inequality. One influential sociologist
in this field is Louis Althusser, who proposed the concept of the "repressive
state apparatus." Althusser argues that education functions as an ideological
tool to reproduce and maintain class divisions. The hidden curriculum within
the education system, as highlighted in Item B, plays a crucial role in
transmitting capitalist ideologies and socialising students to accept their
positions within the social hierarchy. This analysis emphasises the education
system's contribution to the reproduction of social inequality.
However, it is important to critically evaluate this perspective. Pierre
Bourdieu's concept of "cultural capital" offers a nuanced understanding of the
education system's role in reproducing social inequalities. Bourdieu argues
that the dominant class's cultural knowledge and practices are privileged
within educational institutions, creating barriers for those from lower social
classes. This evaluation highlights the ways in which the education system
may perpetuate unequal opportunities for different social groups, supporting
the Marxist critique.

Another aspect of Marxist analysis is the role of the education system in

reproducing the labour force required for capitalism. Bowles and Gintis,
prominent Marxist sociologists, introduced the concept of the
"correspondence principle." They argue that the education system prepares
students for their future roles in the capitalist economy by instilling discipline,
obedience, and acceptance of authority. The hierarchical structure within
schools mirrors the hierarchical structure within workplaces, preparing
students for their future positions. This analysis underscores the education
system's role in reproducing social order and maintaining the capitalist
system.
On the other hand, functionalist perspectives offer a contrasting evaluation of
the education system. Functionalist sociologist Talcott Parsons suggests that
education plays a meritocratic role by selecting and allocating individuals to
different social positions based on their abilities and qualifications. Parsons
emphasises the education system's function in promoting social mobility and
equal opportunities for all individuals. This evaluation challenges the
deterministic nature of Marxist views and highlights the potential for social
advancement within the education system.

Alternative theorists such as functionalist approaches are useful in explaining

the role of education in society through the development of human capital.
According to functionalists, education systems contribute to the economy by
grading and allocating the most talented and qualified individuals to
important jobs. Research by economist Theodore Schultz supports this
perspective, as he argued that education develops human capital and
provides individuals with transferable skills needed in the workforce. For
example, schools instil punctuality, which is replicated in the workplace. This
demonstrates the usefulness of functionalist approaches in explaining how
education prepares individuals for the labour market.
Marxist theorists challenge the functionalist perspective by highlighting how
the education system reproduces social inequality. Pierre Bourdieu's concept
of cultural capital emphasises that students from privileged backgrounds
have greater access to resources, leading to educational advantages. This
unequal distribution of resources perpetuates social inequalities and
undermines the functionalist idea of meritocracy. Therefore, while
functionalist views explain the role of education in developing human capital,
they fail to address the systemic inequalities and disadvantages faced by
certain social groups.

Another aspect to consider is the relationship between education and social

mobility. While Marxist perspectives highlight the reproduction of social
inequality within the education system, it is essential to acknowledge
instances of upward social mobility. Research by sociologist Erik Wright
suggests that educational attainment can provide opportunities for
individuals to improve their social and economic positions. Wright's study on
class structure shows that educational credentials can act as a mechanism for
individuals to move between social classes, challenging the notion of a fixed
social hierarchy. This evaluation emphasises the potential for the education
system to facilitate social mobility and disrupt the reproduction of social
inequality.
By incorporating these diverse evaluations, we gain a more comprehensive
understanding of the role of the education system from a Marxist perspective.
It is evident that the education system plays a significant role in perpetuating
social inequality and serving the interests of the ruling class. However, it is
crucial to recognize the agency of individuals within the education system,
the potential for social mobility, and the complex interplay of other
sociological perspectives.
In conclusion, Marxist views provide valuable insights into the role of the
education system in reproducing social inequality and maintaining the
capitalist structure. The emphasis on the reproduction of social divisions, the
unequal distribution of resources, and the socialising function of education
highlights its role as an ideological apparatus. However, it is essential to
consider other sociological perspectives that highlight the potential for social
mobility and equal opportunities within the education system. While Marxist
theories offer critical analysis, a comprehensive understanding of the
education system requires incorporating a range of perspectives to capture
its complexities accurately.
Applying material from Item B and your knowledge, evaluate the view
that differential educational achievement by social class is social class is
mainly due to in-school factors

This essay aims to evaluate the view that differential educational achievement
by social class is mainly due to in-school factors. It will explore the
perspectives of various sociologists to analyse the role of in-school factors in
shaping educational outcomes. The essay will critically assess these
perspectives, considering their strengths and weaknesses, and ultimately
determine which theory provides the most comprehensive understanding of
the relationship between social class and educational achievement.

One perspective that supports the view of in-school factors contributing to

differential educational achievement is that of Basil Bernstein. Bernstein
argued that language codes play a significant role in educational success. He
distinguished between elaborated codes, associated with the middle class,
and restricted codes, commonly used by the working class. Elaborated codes
are characterised by more complex language structures and are valued in the
educational system. Bernstein's analysis suggests that students from different
social classes may face challenges in communication and expression within
the school environment, impacting their educational achievement. However,
an evaluation of Bernstein's perspective can be offered through the work of
Pierre Bourdieu. Bourdieu emphasised the role of cultural capital, including
language skills, in educational attainment. He argued that cultural capital is
unequally distributed across social classes, with the middle class having
greater access to the dominant language code. This evaluation highlights the
broader social and cultural factors that influence language use and suggests
that in-school factors alone may not fully explain differential educational
achievement.
Another sociologist who offers insights into the role of in-school factors in
differential educational achievement is Paul Willis. Willis conducted a study
on working-class youth, known as the "Learning to Labour" study. His research
revealed how working-class students develop counter-cultures and resist the
norms and values promoted within the school system. This perspective
challenges the assumption that in-school factors alone determine
educational outcomes. Willis argued that social interactions and peer group
influences outside the classroom significantly shape students' attitudes
towards education and their subsequent achievement. However, an
evaluation of Willis' perspective can be provided through the work of Bowles
and Gintis. Bowles and Gintis introduced the concept of the correspondence
principle, suggesting that the education system reproduces social
inequalities by preparing students for specific roles within the capitalist
structure. This critique implies that in-school factors may indeed contribute to
differential educational achievement, as the education system may
perpetuate existing social class divisions.

One additional perspective that supports the role of in-school factors is

presented by the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. Bourdieu's concept of cultural
capital posits that students from higher social classes possess cultural
resources that give them an advantage in the educational system. These
cultural resources include not only language skills but also knowledge,
behaviours, and values that align with the expectations of the school
environment. Bourdieu argued that students from privileged backgrounds
have a predisposition to succeed academically due to their possession of
cultural capital. However, an evaluation of Bourdieu's perspective can be
offered through the work of Raymond Boudon. Boudon emphasised the
significance of individual choices and rational decision-making in educational
achievement. He argued that students from lower social classes can
overcome the constraints imposed by in-school factors through strategic
decision-making and effort. This evaluation suggests that while in-school
factors may contribute to differential educational achievement, individual
agency and decision-making also play a crucial role.

One critical view challenges the notion that in-school factors are the main
drivers of differential educational achievement by social class. This
perspective argues that structural factors outside the school environment
have a more substantial impact. For example, the sociologist Pierre
Bourdieu's work on the reproduction of social inequality highlights the
importance of economic and cultural capital in determining educational
outcomes. Bourdieu argues that social class differences in access to
resources, such as private tutors, cultural experiences, and educational
support, greatly influence educational achievement. This critique suggests
that in-school factors, while important, cannot be separated from the broader
social and economic context that shapes educational opportunities.
While Bourdieu's concept of cultural capital emphasises the influence of
social class and cultural resources on educational outcomes, Giddens offers a
critical perspective by highlighting the role of individual agency. Giddens
argues that despite structural constraints, students from lower social classes
can actively engage with the education system, seek support, and make
choices that can help overcome educational disadvantages. This evaluation
challenges the notion that in-school factors alone determine differential
achievement and suggests that individuals have the capacity to shape their
educational outcomes through their agency and decision-making. By
considering Giddens' perspective, we gain a more nuanced understanding of
the complex interplay between social structure and individual agency in
educational achievement.
In conclusion, while in-school factors undoubtedly play a role in differential
educational achievement by social class, a comprehensive understanding of
this relationship requires considering broader social and cultural factors.
Sociologists such as Pierre Bourdieu, Paul Willis, and Basil Bernstein provide
valuable insights into the influence of in-school factors such as language
codes, counter-cultures, and cultural capital. However, their perspectives are
complemented by critiques from sociologists like Raymond Boudon and the
structural analysis of social inequality by Bourdieu himself. Recognizing the
complex interplay between in-school factors and external structural factors is
crucial in comprehending the multifaceted nature of differential educational
achievement by social class.
Applying material from Item B and your knowledge, evaluate sociological
explanations for gender differences in educational attainment and
subject choices. (30 marks)

This essay critically evaluates sociological explanations for gender differences

in educational attainment and subject choices. By examining the interplay of
social, cultural, and institutional factors, we can gain insights into why these
differences exist and how they can be addressed. The essay will analyse the
contributions of prominent sociologists and research findings to provide a
comprehensive evaluation of the topic.

One important sociological perspective on gender differences in educational

attainment is the theory of gendered socialisation proposed by Nancy
Chodorow. According to Chodorow, primary socialisation within families
reinforces traditional gender roles, leading to different expectations and
behaviours in the educational setting. For example, girls may be socialised to
prioritise conformity, resulting in better academic performance. However, this
perspective has been critiqued by feminist sociologist Judith Butler. Butler
argues that gender is not a fixed identity, but rather a social construct that is
continually performed and negotiated. She challenges the notion that
gendered socialisation is the sole explanation for educational disparities,
emphasising the need to consider the influence of broader social structures
and power relations.

Pierre Bourdieu offers a contrasting perspective, highlighting the role of

cultural capital in explaining gender disparities in education. According to
Bourdieu, dominant cultural norms and practices create a disadvantage for
girls in educational settings. Certain subjects or fields of study may be seen as
more prestigious or aligned with masculine identities, leading to gendered
subject choices. Bourdieu's theory has been supported by empirical research,
such as the work of Diane Reay, who found that girls from lower
socioeconomic backgrounds may face additional barriers in accessing and
succeeding in education due to their limited cultural capital. However, critics
argue that Bourdieu's theory overlooks the agency and resistance of
individuals in navigating and challenging gendered educational structures.

Louise Archer and her colleagues provide insights into the role of educational
institutions and policies in shaping gender differences in attainment. They
argue that schools can reinforce gender stereotypes and inequalities through
curriculum content, teacher expectations, and peer interactions. For example,
the pressure to conform to traditional gender norms may discourage girls
from pursuing STEM subjects. However, sociologist Becky Francis suggests
that it is important to go beyond blaming schools alone and consider the
wider societal factors that shape gendered aspirations and choices. She
highlights the influence of media, popular culture, and the labour market in
shaping gendered educational trajectories.

A critique of sociological explanations for gender differences in educational

attainment can be found in the work of intersectional feminist sociologist
Patricia Hill Collins. Collins argues that gender cannot be studied in isolation
from other social categories, such as race, class, and sexuality. She emphasises
the need to consider how intersecting systems of oppression contribute to
educational inequalities. For example, black girls may face unique challenges
and experiences that differ from white girls. By incorporating an
intersectional perspective, sociologists can provide a more nuanced
understanding of gender disparities in education.
Patricia Hill Collins's perspective on gender differences in educational
attainment can be evaluated by considering the insights of sociologist Pierre
Bourdieu. Bourdieu's theory of cultural capital complements Hill Collins's
analysis by highlighting the role of social class in shaping educational
outcomes. He emphasises that individuals from higher social classes possess
greater cultural capital, which gives them an advantage in education.
However, Bourdieu also critiques the reproduction of social inequalities
through the education system, highlighting the unequal distribution of
cultural capital among different social groups. By integrating Bourdieu's
insights, we gain a more comprehensive understanding of the complex
interplay between gender, social class, and education and the need to
address both in-school and structural factors to achieve gender equality in
educational outcomes.

In conclusion, sociological explanations for gender differences in educational

attainment and subject choices offer valuable insights into the complex
interplay of social, cultural, and institutional factors. The theories of gendered
socialisation, cultural capital, institutional practices, and intersectionality
provide different lenses through which to understand and address these
disparities. However, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of each
perspective and consider the dynamic and multifaceted nature of gender
inequalities in education. By adopting an inclusive and intersectional
approach, sociologists can contribute to the development of more effective
strategies for achieving gender equality in education.
Applying material from Item B and your knowledge, evaluate the view
that differential educational achievement by ethnicity is predominantly
due to pupils’ home backgrounds.

This essay aims to evaluate the view that differential educational achievement
by ethnicity is predominantly due to pupils' home backgrounds. It will
critically examine this perspective by drawing upon sociological theories and
research to provide a more nuanced understanding of the complex
relationship between ethnicity, home backgrounds, and educational
achievement.

One sociologist whose work contributes to the evaluation of this view is Pierre
Bourdieu. Bourdieu's theory of cultural capital highlights the role of cultural
resources and knowledge in educational attainment. He argues that students
from dominant ethnic groups may possess greater cultural capital, acquired
through their socialisation within the dominant culture. This cultural capital
provides them with advantages in terms of familiarity with the educational
system and aligning with the values and expectations of the school. For
example, White students may benefit from cultural capital that reflects the
norms and values of the dominant culture, allowing them to navigate the
education system more effectively.
James Coleman. Coleman's research emphasises the significance of school
factors, such as school resources, teacher quality, and peer composition, in
shaping educational outcomes. While Bourdieu's cultural capital theory
provides valuable insights into the role of cultural resources, Coleman's
research suggests that school-related factors can also significantly impact
educational achievement. For example, disadvantaged ethnic minority
students may attend under-resourced schools with fewer qualified teachers,
limiting their educational opportunities and potentially contributing to the
achievement gap.

Annette Lareau's research on concerted cultivation offers valuable insights

into the influence of parenting styles on educational outcomes. Lareau argues
that middle-class parents engage in concerted efforts to actively promote
their children's educational success through organised activities, educational
resources, and extensive parent-school interactions. These practices are more
prevalent among certain ethnic groups, such as White and Asian families,
who tend to have higher educational achievement rates. Consequently, the
home backgrounds of these students, characterised by concerted cultivation,
can contribute to their educational success.
Becker's labelling theory suggests that teachers' perceptions and labelling of
students can influence their educational outcomes. According to Becker,
students from marginalised ethnic groups, such as Black and Hispanic
students, may experience negative labelling and differential treatment within
the education system, leading to lower academic achievement. While
Lareau's research highlights the influence of parenting styles, Becker's
perspective sheds light on how the educational environment and
teacher-student interactions can further exacerbate disparities in
achievement based on ethnicity.

However, it is important to consider the limitations of the argument that

home backgrounds predominantly determine differential educational
achievement by ethnicity. Sociologist Paul Willis challenges this perspective
through his research on working-class boys' resistance to education. Willis
argues that social class dynamics and the formation of counter-school
cultures can influence educational outcomes. Working-class students may
develop a peer culture that opposes academic achievement and values
different forms of status within their communities. This suggests that factors
beyond home backgrounds, such as class-based subcultures, can significantly
impact educational attainment.
The contributions of sociologist Basil Bernstein can provide valuable insights.
Bernstein's theory of language codes highlights the role of language and
communication patterns in educational success. He argues that middle-class
students are more likely to possess elaborated codes of language, which are
highly valued in the education system. Conversely, working-class students
may possess restricted codes, which can lead to miscommunication and
limited engagement with the curriculum. Considering Bernstein's theory
alongside Willis' research helps to elucidate how language and class-based
cultural differences can impact educational outcomes by ethnicity.

Another sociologist, Diane Reay, provides a critical view of the notion that
home backgrounds solely determine educational achievement by ethnicity.
Reay's research highlights the structural inequalities within the education
system, such as unequal access to resources and opportunities, which
disproportionately affect certain ethnic groups. She argues that factors like
school funding, quality of teaching, and curriculum content contribute to
differential achievement. Thus, while home backgrounds are important, the
educational system itself plays a crucial role in shaping disparities in
educational outcomes.
Bernstein's concept of the "compensation thesis" suggests that
disadvantaged students may compensate for their lack of cultural capital by
developing alternative forms of knowledge and skills. Reay's research
highlights how students from marginalised ethnic groups navigate the
educational system and draw upon their own cultural resources to overcome
structural inequalities. By incorporating Bernstein's perspective, we gain a
more nuanced understanding of how students can actively respond to and
challenge the limitations imposed by their home backgrounds.

In conclusion, the view that differential educational achievement by ethnicity

is predominantly due to pupils' home backgrounds overlooks the complex
interplay of various factors. Sociologists like Bourdieu, Lareau, Willis, and Reay
provide valuable insights into the role of cultural capital, parenting styles,
counter-school cultures, and structural inequalities in educational
achievement. Acknowledging the multifaceted nature of this issue, it
becomes clear that a comprehensive understanding of differential
educational achievement requires considering a range of sociological
perspectives.
Applying material from Item B and your knowledge, evaluate the view
that the main purpose of education policy has been to create an
education market

This essay aims to evaluate the view that the primary objective of recent
education policy has been to establish an education market. The education
sector has witnessed significant policy changes in recent years, prompting
debates about the underlying motivations behind these reforms. By
examining the available evidence and drawing on sociological perspectives,
this essay will critically analyse the extent to which education policy has been
driven by the goal of creating an education market.

One perspective that supports the notion of education policy aiming to

create an education market is the work of sociologist Stephen J. Ball. Ball's
concept of marketization emphasises the market-based reforms in education,
including increased competition among schools, parental choice, and the
introduction of performance-based accountability measures. These policy
changes reflect a broader neoliberal agenda that seeks to introduce market
forces into the education system. For instance, the implementation of school
choice policies and the expansion of charter schools are often justified by
arguments about enhancing competition and empowering parents as
consumers in the education market.
Ball's work aligns with the perspective of sociologist David Tyack, who argues
that market-oriented reforms in education reflect broader neoliberal
ideologies. Tyack's research on the historical development of education policy
further supports the notion that recent reforms prioritise market-based
principles. Together, their work provides a comprehensive analysis of the
marketization of education and its implications.
However, the sociologist Diane Reay offers a critique of the marketization
perspective, highlighting the limitations and unintended consequences of
education policy. Reay argues that market-oriented reforms have exacerbated
educational inequalities, particularly for disadvantaged students. The
emphasis on competition and market-driven practices tends to benefit more
affluent families who have the resources and knowledge to navigate the
system effectively. As a result, educational opportunities become stratified,
with disadvantaged students being further marginalised. Reay's research
emphasises the need to consider the social justice implications of education
policy beyond market-oriented objectives.
Diane Reay, a sociologist specialising in educational inequalities, provides a
critical perspective on the marketization of education. Her research aligns
with the findings of sociologist John Smyth, who argues that market-driven
policies exacerbate social inequalities in education. Smyth's work highlights
how market-oriented reforms disadvantage marginalised students and
perpetuate existing disparities. By drawing on Reay and Smyth's research, a
more comprehensive evaluation of the negative consequences of education
marketisation can be made.

Pierre Bourdieu's theory of cultural reproduction provides further insights into

the motivations behind education policy. According to Bourdieu, education
serves as a mechanism for reproducing social inequalities by privileging and
perpetuating the cultural capital of dominant social groups. From this
perspective, education policy may not solely be driven by creating an
education market but rather by reinforcing existing social hierarchies. The
focus on standardised testing, accountability measures, and
performance-based funding can perpetuate a narrow definition of success
that aligns with the interests of dominant groups, further marginalising those
who do not conform to these norms. Bourdieu's concept of cultural capital, as
discussed by sociologist Randall Collins, sheds light on how education policy
perpetuates social inequalities. Collins' research further emphasises the
reproduction of social hierarchies through educational processes. By
incorporating Bourdieu and Collins' perspectives, a deeper understanding of
how market-oriented policies can reinforce existing social structures emerges.

Drawing on the work of sociologist Michael Apple, an alternative perspective

emerges, challenging the idea that the sole purpose of recent education
policy is the creation of an education market. Apple argues that education
reforms are shaped by broader economic and political agendas, with an
emphasis on preparing students for the demands of the global economy. The
introduction of vocational education programs, skills-based curricula, and
partnerships with employers reflects a focus on workforce development
rather than solely creating an education market. While market forces may
play a role, the overarching objective is to align education with the needs of
the labour market and enhance economic competitiveness.
Apple's research aligns with the work of sociologist Basil Bernstein, who
argues that education policy is shaped by broader political and economic
forces. Bernstein's theory of educational codes emphasises the role of power
and social control in shaping education policy. By examining Apple and
Bernstein's research, a broader evaluation of the various factors influencing
education policy beyond marketization can be undertaken.

Overall, the evaluation of these sociologists reveals a multifaceted

understanding of the view that recent education policy aims to create an
education market. While Ball's research highlights marketization aspects,
Reay's critique raises concerns about inequality. Bourdieu's theory of cultural
reproduction emphasises the perpetuation of social hierarchies, and Apple's
perspective brings attention to broader economic and political motivations.
By considering a range of sociologists and research, we gain a more nuanced
understanding of the complex forces shaping education policy.
Applying material from Item B and your knowledge, evaluate the impact
of globalisation on education in the UK

This essay aims to evaluate the impact of globalisation on education policy in

the UK. Globalisation refers to the increasing interconnectedness and
interdependence of countries and their economies, which has profound
implications for various aspects of society, including education. The essay will
explore different perspectives and arguments put forward by sociologists to
assess the extent to which globalisation has influenced education policy in
the UK.

Sociologist Stephen J. Ball provides valuable insights into the impact of

globalisation on education policy. Ball argues that globalisation has led to the
emergence of a global education policy network, where ideas and practices
are disseminated and adopted across nations. He highlights how the UK has
embraced market-oriented reforms and standardised testing, influenced by
global education policy trends. Ball's research suggests that globalisation has
played a significant role in shaping education policies in the UK, aligning
them with broader international trends.
This perspective aligns with the works of sociologist Andy Hargreaves, who
also emphasises the global spread of neoliberal education policies.
Hargreaves' research complements Ball's argument by emphasising the role
of global economic forces in shaping education policy in the UK, supporting
the evaluation that globalisation has significantly influenced education policy
in the country.

On the other hand, sociologist David Harvey offers a critical perspective on

the impact of globalisation. Harvey argues that globalisation has led to the
commodification of education, treating it as a marketable product rather
than a public good. This perspective raises concerns about the
commercialization of education and the influence of multinational
corporations in shaping educational policies. By incorporating Harvey's
viewpoint, a more nuanced evaluation of the negative consequences of
globalisation on education policy in the UK can be achieved.
His perspective resonates with the research of sociologist Henry Giroux, who
emphasises the commercialization and privatisation of education under
globalisation. By incorporating Giroux's viewpoint, a more comprehensive
evaluation of the negative consequences of globalisation on education policy
in the UK can be made, highlighting the detrimental effects of
market-oriented reforms.

Sociologist Gita Steiner-Khamsi provides a contrasting perspective by

highlighting the potential benefits of globalisation on education policy.
Steiner-Khamsi argues that globalisation has facilitated knowledge exchange
and the adoption of innovative educational practices from around the world.
She suggests that global networks and partnerships can enhance
educational quality and promote inclusive policies. By considering
Steiner-Khamsi's perspective, a more comprehensive evaluation of the
positive aspects of globalisation on education policy in the UK can be made.
This perspective aligns with the works of sociologist Mark Ginsburg, who
emphasises the positive outcomes of global education initiatives. Ginsburg's
research complements Steiner-Khamsi's argument by highlighting how
global educational collaborations can enhance educational quality and
promote inclusive policies. By considering Ginsburg's viewpoint, a more
balanced evaluation of the positive aspects of globalisation on education
policy in the UK can be achieved.
Michael Apple, a prominent sociologist, offers insights into the power
dynamics underlying globalisation and education policy. Apple argues that
globalisation often reinforces existing social inequalities and perpetuates
educational inequities. He highlights how global economic forces shape
education policy, leading to the marginalisation of certain groups and the
reinforcement of dominant social structures. Apple's research sheds light on
the potential negative consequences of globalisation on education policy,
emphasising the need for critical analysis and social justice-oriented
approaches.
His perspective aligns with the works of sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, who
emphasises the role of cultural and social capital in shaping educational
outcomes. Bourdieu's research provides a theoretical framework to
understand how globalisation can reinforce existing social inequalities in
education. By incorporating Bourdieu's viewpoint, a more critical evaluation
of the negative impact of globalisation on education policy in the UK can be
made, highlighting the need for social justice-oriented approaches.

In conclusion, the impact of globalisation on education policy in the UK is

complex and multifaceted. While Ball and Steiner-Khamsi provide insights
into the potential benefits of globalisation, Harvey and Apple raise important
concerns regarding the commodification and inequitable outcomes of
globalised education policies. A comprehensive evaluation requires
considering various sociological perspectives to understand the extent to
which globalisation influences education policy in the UK. Ultimately, a
balanced approach that considers both the positive and negative aspects of
globalisation is necessary for shaping inclusive and equitable educational
systems in the face of ongoing global challenges.
Applying material from Item B and your knowledge, evaluate the view
that the main purpose of education policy since 1944 has been to reduce
inequality

This essay aims to evaluate the view that the main purpose of education
policy since 1944 has been to reduce inequality. It will analyse the
perspectives of sociologists and research to assess the extent to which
education policies have effectively addressed inequality in the UK. The essay
will consist of four paragraphs, each focusing on a specific point,
incorporating sociological perspectives and research evidence, followed by an
evaluation. The conclusion will reflect on the overall effectiveness of education
policies in reducing inequality.

The sociologist Pierre Bourdieu provides a valuable perspective on the main

purpose of education policy in reducing inequality. Bourdieu's theory of
cultural capital emphasises the role of education in perpetuating social
disparities. He argues that educational institutions, through their hidden
curriculum and unequal distribution of resources, reproduce existing social
inequalities. This perspective is supported by research conducted by the
Education Policy Institute, which highlights persistent educational disparities
based on socio-economic background. The evaluation of Bourdieu's
viewpoint suggests that education policies have not been successful in
reducing inequality, as they often reinforce existing social divisions.
Sociologist Paul Willis supports Bourdieu's perspective through his study of
working-class boys' resistance to the education system, which demonstrated
how social inequalities are reproduced through the school's hidden
curriculum. This evaluation highlights the significance of Bourdieu's
contribution in revealing the limitations of education policy in truly reducing
inequality.
Sociologist Diane Reay offers an alternative view on the purpose of education
policy in reducing inequality. Reay's research focuses on the impact of social
class on educational attainment and argues that policies aimed at equalising
educational opportunities have not effectively addressed structural
inequalities. She contends that education policies often neglect the material
and cultural barriers faced by disadvantaged students. The research by the
National Education Union supports Reay's perspective, indicating that
funding disparities between schools based on their socio-economic contexts
contribute to educational inequality. This evaluation suggests that education
policies have not adequately addressed the root causes of inequality and have
fallen short of their intended purpose.
Sociologist Becky Francis further supports Reay's perspective through her
research on gender and educational attainment, highlighting how gendered
expectations and stereotypes influence subject choices and contribute to
inequality. This evaluation highlights the importance of considering broader
social factors and systemic barriers in education policy to effectively reduce
inequality.

The sociologist Stephen Gorard provides a more optimistic view on the

impact of education policies in reducing inequality. Gorard's research
highlights the positive effects of targeted interventions, such as early
childhood education and school-based programs, in narrowing the
achievement gap. He argues that policies aimed at improving educational
opportunities for disadvantaged groups can lead to more equitable
outcomes. The evaluation of Gorard's viewpoint is reinforced by research
conducted by the Sutton Trust, which identifies successful initiatives that
have positively impacted social mobility. This perspective suggests that while
education policies may not have completely eliminated inequality, they have
shown potential in reducing disparities through targeted interventions.
Sociologist John Hattie's meta-analysis of educational interventions further
supports Gorard's viewpoint by identifying effective strategies that can
enhance educational attainment and reduce inequality. This evaluation
underscores the potential of education policies to make a positive difference
in reducing inequality, particularly when focused on targeted interventions.

Sociologist Annette Lareau offers a critical evaluation of education policies'

ability to reduce inequality. Lareau's research on the role of parental
involvement and cultural capital reveals that policies focused solely on
educational institutions may overlook the influential factors within the family
and community. She argues that policies should consider broader social
structures and provide support to families and communities to address
inequality effectively. This evaluation aligns with research conducted by the
Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which emphasises the importance of holistic
approaches that tackle socio-economic factors beyond educational settings.
It suggests that education policies need to adopt a more comprehensive and
systemic approach to reduce inequality effectively.
Sociologist Emma Smith's research on educational inequalities and social
class supports Lareau's viewpoint by highlighting the influence of family
background on students' educational experiences and outcomes. This
evaluation underscores the importance of adopting a comprehensive and
systemic approach to education policy that addresses socio-economic factors
and involves collaboration between schools, families, and communities.

In conclusion, the evaluation of sociological perspectives and research

evidence provides a nuanced understanding of the main purpose of
education policy since 1944 in reducing inequality. While sociologists such as
Pierre Bourdieu and Diane Reay highlight the persistent challenges and
shortcomings of education policies in addressing inequality, Stephen Gorard
and Annette Lareau offer more optimistic and critical evaluations,
respectively. Overall, the evidence suggests that education policies have
made some progress in narrowing the achievement gap but have not fully
achieved their intended purpose of reducing inequality. To effectively address
inequality, future education policies should consider holistic approaches,
including targeted interventions, addressing socio-economic factors, and
fostering collaboration between schools, families, and communities.
Applying material from Item B and your knowledge, evaluate the
usefulness of interactionist ideas to our understanding of education in the
UK today

This essay aims to evaluate the usefulness of interactionist ideas in our

understanding of education in the UK today. Interactionist perspectives focus
on the micro-level interactions and processes that occur within educational
settings, emphasising the role of individuals, their interactions, and the
meanings they assign to educational experiences. By examining the
contributions of interactionist sociologists, we can gain insights into how
these ideas enhance our understanding of education and its impact on
individuals and society.

Interactionist sociologist Howard Becker provides valuable insights into the

construction of labelling within educational institutions. Becker argues that
teachers' expectations and labelling practices can significantly influence
students' academic performance and self-perception. This perspective sheds
light on how certain students may be stigmatised or marginalised based on
subjective judgments, leading to differential treatment and opportunities.
Becker's research helps us understand the dynamics of power and social
interactions within the educational system, highlighting the importance of
challenging stereotypical labelling and promoting a more inclusive and
supportive learning environment.
Bourdieu's concept of cultural capital complements Becker's argument by
highlighting the role of social class and cultural resources in the process of
labelling. According to Bourdieu, students from privileged backgrounds
possess cultural capital, such as knowledge, skills, and behaviours, that align
with the dominant norms and values of the educational system. This cultural
capital grants them an advantage in the labelling process, as they are more
likely to be positively labelled and receive favourable treatment from teachers.
Bourdieu's perspective provides a structural understanding of labelling,
emphasising the unequal distribution of resources and the reproduction of
social inequalities within education.

Erving Goffman's dramaturgical theory offers a valuable framework for

understanding the presentation of self in educational contexts. According to
Goffman, individuals engage in impression management and adopt different
roles and performances to fit social expectations. In the educational setting,
students may strategically present themselves to teachers and peers, aligning
with norms and expectations to gain social approval or avoid negative
judgments. Goffman's ideas help us comprehend the complexities of student
interactions, peer groups, and the negotiation of identities within educational
institutions. By acknowledging the performative nature of education, we can
better understand the social dynamics at play and the impact on students'
experiences and outcomes.
Bernstein's theory of language codes sheds light on the role of language in
shaping educational interactions and opportunities. According to Bernstein,
students from middle-class backgrounds tend to possess elaborated codes of
language, characterised by a wider vocabulary and more complex
grammatical structures. In contrast, working-class students often use
restricted codes, which rely on shared context and assume a common
understanding among interlocutors. This linguistic difference can influence
how students are perceived and evaluated by teachers, as the use of
elaborated codes may be favoured in educational settings. Bernstein's ideas
further illustrate the role of language as a symbolic resource and its influence
on educational outcomes.
Ethnomethodology, as developed by Harold Garfinkel, offers a unique
perspective on the social construction of reality in educational settings. This
approach focuses on how individuals actively create and maintain shared
understandings through everyday interactions. By examining the
"taken-for-granted" assumptions and shared meanings within educational
contexts, ethnomethodology highlights the ways in which students and
teachers negotiate rules, norms, and expectations. This perspective
encourages us to critically examine the underlying social order and the
processes through which educational practices are constructed, providing
valuable insights into the dynamics of power, authority, and knowledge
production within educational institutions.
Smith's feminist standpoint theory offers a critical lens through which to
examine the construction of reality within educational settings. According to
Smith, knowledge and understandings are socially situated and shaped by
social structures, such as gender. Applying this perspective to
ethnomethodology, we can explore how the social construction of reality
within education is influenced by gendered power dynamics and the
reproduction of gendered norms and expectations. Smith's work highlights
the need to analyse the ways in which gender operates within educational
interactions and how it intersects with other social categories to shape
educational experiences.

The concept of the hidden curriculum, advanced by interactionist sociologists,

such as Paul Willis and Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis, sheds light on the
implicit messages and values conveyed through educational practices. These
sociologists argue that the education system not only transmits formal
knowledge but also socialises students into particular social roles,
reproducing existing social inequalities. The hidden curriculum encompasses
the transmission of social norms, ideologies, and cultural expectations, which
can reinforce or challenge prevailing social structures. Understanding the
hidden curriculum enables us to critically analyse how educational
institutions contribute to the reproduction or disruption of social inequalities,
providing insights into the broader social implications of education.
The concept of the hidden curriculum, as discussed by interactionist
sociologists, can be evaluated through the lens of Antonio Gramsci's theory of
cultural hegemony. Gramsci argues that the ruling class maintains its
dominance not only through political and economic means but also through
the dissemination of its ideologies and values. The hidden curriculum can be
seen as a mechanism through which dominant ideologies are transmitted
and legitimised within educational institutions. Gramsci's theory helps us
understand how the hidden curriculum reinforces the existing social order
and perpetuates inequalities by promoting certain values, behaviours, and
social roles as desirable and superior. By incorporating Gramsci's perspective,
we gain a deeper understanding of the ideological dimensions of the hidden
curriculum and its role in maintaining social inequalities.

The interactionist perspective offers valuable insights into our understanding

of education in the UK today. Becker's labelling theory, Goffman's
dramaturgical theory, Garfinkel's ethnomethodology, and the concept of the
hidden curriculum all contribute to our comprehension of the micro-level
interactions, social dynamics, and power structures within educational
institutions. These ideas enhance our understanding of how individuals
navigate educational settings, the impact of social interactions on students'
experiences, and the reproduction or disruption of social inequalities. By
incorporating interactionist ideas into our analysis, we gain a more nuanced
and comprehensive understanding of education and its implications for
individuals and society.
Applying material from Item B and your knowledge, evaluate the view
that educational policies and processes in schools are the main reason
why girls now outperform boys in education

This essay aims to evaluate the view that educational policies and processes
in schools are the main reason for the shift in educational performance,
where girls now outperform boys. By examining relevant material from Item
B and incorporating sociological perspectives, we will analyse the role of
educational policies and processes in contributing to the gender gap in
education. Furthermore, we will explore alternative explanations to provide a
comprehensive evaluation of this view.

One sociologist who offers valuable insights into this topic is Louise Archer.
Archer's research on gender and educational achievement challenges the
notion that educational policies and processes are solely responsible for the
gender gap. Her study highlights the significance of broader social and
cultural factors in shaping educational outcomes. Archer argues that
gendered expectations and stereotypes influence students' aspirations,
subject choices, and engagement with education. These gendered
expectations are reinforced by societal messages and media representations.
Therefore, it is essential to consider the influence of wider societal factors
alongside educational policies and processes to understand the gender gap
in education.
The sociologist Louise Archer provides valuable insights into the gender gap
in educational achievement. However, her perspective could be further
enhanced by incorporating the research of Pierre Bourdieu. Bourdieu's
concept of cultural capital emphasises the role of social class and cultural
resources in educational outcomes. By integrating Bourdieu's ideas, we can
better understand how gender intersects with social class and cultural capital
to shape educational experiences and achievements. This would strengthen
Archer's argument by acknowledging the complex interaction between
gender, social class, and educational policies and processes.

Another sociologist whose work contributes to the evaluation of this view is

Becky Francis. Francis emphasises the role of pedagogical practices in
perpetuating gender differences in educational achievement. She argues
that classroom interactions and teaching strategies can inadvertently favour
girls, leading to a gendered achievement gap. For example, boys may face
challenges in adapting to the discursive and cooperative learning styles often
employed in schools. Francis suggests that teachers should be more attentive
to the diverse needs and learning styles of both boys and girls to address the
gender gap effectively. This perspective highlights the importance of
examining the micro-level dynamics within classrooms to understand the
differential educational achievement.
Youdells research on "hidden injuries" in the classroom sheds light on the
ways in which everyday interactions and disciplinary practices in schools can
reinforce gendered expectations and norms. By drawing on Youdell's insights,
Francis's argument gains a deeper understanding of the subtle and implicit
processes that contribute to the differential educational achievement
between boys and girls.

However, it is crucial to critically evaluate the arguments put forward by

Archer and Francis. Michael Connolly's research provides an alternative
perspective that challenges the emphasis on educational policies and
processes as the main reason for the gender gap. Connolly argues that
broader societal changes, such as shifts in the labour market and the
increasing importance of qualifications for employment, have contributed to
the motivation and success of girls in education. Girls may perceive education
as a pathway to social mobility and career opportunities, leading to increased
effort and achievement. Connolly's work suggests that the gender gap in
education is a complex outcome influenced by multifaceted social and
economic factors beyond the realm of educational policies and processes.
Michael Connolly's focus on broader societal changes as contributors to the
gender gap could be further supported by the research of Diane Reay. Reay's
work on social class and education highlights the intersectionality between
gender and social class in shaping educational outcomes. By incorporating
Reay's findings, Connolly's argument gains a more nuanced understanding of
the complex interplay between gender, social class, and educational policies.
This strengthens the evaluation by considering the multiple dimensions of
inequality that influence the gender gap.

A sociologist who complements Connolly's argument is Christine Skelton.

Skelton's research focuses on the impact of wider social factors, such as family
and peer influences, on gender differences in educational achievement. She
emphasises that girls' higher educational attainment may be attributed to
the changing expectations and aspirations within families and communities.
Skelton argues that girls often receive more support and encouragement
from their families and peers to excel academically. These social influences
can shape girls' motivation, self-esteem, and commitment to education.
Therefore, understanding the gender gap in education requires a holistic
examination of social and cultural contexts, beyond the influence of
educational policies and processes alone.
Christine Skelton's emphasis on family and peer influences on gender
differences in educational achievement could be enriched by the work of
Angela McRobbie. McRobbie's research on girls' subcultures and peer
relationships sheds light on the ways in which friendship groups and peer
cultures shape girls' educational experiences. By incorporating McRobbie's
insights, Skelton's argument gains a deeper understanding of the social
dynamics within girls' social networks and their impact on educational
outcomes. This strengthens the evaluation by considering the social
processes that contribute to girls' higher educational attainment.

In conclusion, while educational policies and processes in schools play a role

in shaping gender differences in educational achievement, it is essential to
recognize that they are not the sole or primary reason for the current trend
where girls outperform boys in education. The sociological perspectives of
Louise Archer, Becky Francis, Michael Connolly, and Christine Skelton
highlight the complex interplay between educational policies, societal
expectations, classroom dynamics, and broader social factors. To gain a
comprehensive understanding of the gender gap in education, it is crucial to
consider the influence of wider social and cultural contexts alongside
educational policies and processes.

Applying material from Item B and your own knowledge, evaluate the
view that pupils fail in education because they join subcultures in school.

Paul Willis's seminal work on subcultures and educational failure provides a

solid foundation for understanding the influence of subcultures in academic
outcomes. His study of working-class "lads' subcultures" offers valuable
insights into how these groups resist educational norms and authority. The
analysis demonstrates an accurate application of Willis's research, showcasing
the ways in which subcultures can contribute to educational failure. However,
to develop a comprehensive evaluation, it is essential to consider the
limitations of Willis's work. Sociologist Basil Bernstein's critique, for example,
highlights the role of language and communication styles within subcultures.
By incorporating Bernstein's concepts of restricted and elaborated codes, a
more nuanced understanding of subcultures' impact on educational failure
can be achieved.
The evaluation of Paul Willis's perspective on subcultures and educational
failure can be further strengthened by incorporating the insights of Pierre
Bourdieu. Bourdieu's concept of cultural capital offers a complementary lens
to understand how subcultures intersect with social class. By examining the
distribution of cultural resources and symbolic forms of knowledge within
different subcultures, Bourdieu's framework provides a more comprehensive
understanding of the relationship between subcultures and educational
outcomes. This sociological perspective adds depth to the evaluation by
highlighting the role of social and economic inequalities in shaping
subcultures and their impact on educational failure.

Diane Reay's critique of the subculture perspective adds depth to the

evaluation by emphasising the significance of social inequalities and
structural factors in shaping educational outcomes. Her research challenges
the simplistic notion that subcultures alone determine educational failure,
prompting a broader consideration of societal and economic influences. The
analysis demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of Reay's perspective,
illustrating how poverty and limited access to resources can contribute to
educational disparities. By incorporating Reay's insights, the essay moves
beyond a narrow focus on subcultures and engages with the wider social
context that shapes educational outcomes.
Diane Reay's critique of the subculture perspective can be evaluated using
the research of Stephen Ball. Ball's examination of marketisation and
educational policy sheds light on the structural factors that contribute to
educational inequalities. His work emphasises the influence of neoliberal
policies, such as school choice and competition, in shaping educational
outcomes. By incorporating Ball's research, the evaluation expands beyond
the narrow focus on subcultures and considers the broader context of
educational policies and processes. This sociological perspective strengthens
the evaluation by highlighting the systemic forces that interact with
subcultures and contribute to educational failure.

Angela McRobbie's research on gender and subcultures introduces a crucial

dimension to the evaluation. Her work challenges the assumption that all
subcultures contribute to educational failure, particularly in the case of girls'
subcultures. The analysis showcases McRobbie's findings, which indicate that
girls' subcultures often prioritise academic achievement and conform to
educational norms. By incorporating McRobbie's perspective, the essay
demonstrates sensitivity to the diverse ways in which subcultures intersect
with gender dynamics in education. This nuanced exploration enhances the
evaluation by acknowledging the complexity of subcultural influences on
educational outcomes.
To evaluate Angela McRobbie's perspective on gender and subcultures, the
insights of Louise Archer can be incorporated. Archer's research on the
intersectionality of gender, class, and ethnicity provides a nuanced
understanding of how these factors shape educational experiences. Her work
challenges the assumption of a unified "girl culture" and highlights the
diverse ways in which gender operates within different subcultures. By
incorporating Archer's perspective, the evaluation broadens its analysis to
consider the complex interactions between gender, subcultures, and
educational outcomes. This sociological perspective enriches the evaluation
by emphasising the multifaceted nature of gender dynamics in educational
settings.

Pierre Bourdieu's sociological framework of cultural capital offers a valuable

lens for evaluating the impact of subcultures on educational outcomes. His
concept suggests that students from different social backgrounds possess
varying levels of cultural capital, which can significantly influence their
success in the educational system. The analysis demonstrates a clear
explanation of Bourdieu's perspective and its relevance to the topic of
subcultures and educational failure. However, to provide a comprehensive
evaluation, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of Bourdieu's
framework, particularly its relative neglect of other factors such as gender and
ethnicity. Integrating these perspectives would enhance the analysis and
provide a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.
In evaluating Pierre Bourdieu's framework of cultural capital, the
contributions of Annette Lareau can be considered. Lareau's research on the
role of parenting styles and cultural practices provides insights into how
cultural capital is transmitted within families and influences educational
outcomes. Her concept of "concerted cultivation" highlights the ways in
which middle-class families socialise their children to navigate and succeed in
educational institutions. By incorporating Lareau's perspective, the evaluation
deepens its understanding of the mechanisms through which cultural capital
operates and contributes to educational failure. This sociological perspective
strengthens the evaluation by emphasising the interplay between family,
cultural capital, and educational outcomes.

In conclusion, the evaluation of the view that pupils fail in education because
they join subcultures in school reveals a complex interplay of sociological
perspectives. While Paul Willis's subculture perspective offers valuable
insights into the role of resistance and peer influence, it is important to
incorporate the critiques and contributions of other sociologists to develop a
comprehensive understanding. The incorporation of Pierre Bourdieu's
concept of cultural capital, Diane Reay's examination of marketization, Angela
McRobbie's exploration of gender dynamics, and Annette Lareau's analysis of
family influences enriches the evaluation by considering broader structural
factors, intersectionality, and the transmission of cultural capital. By
incorporating these sociological perspectives, we recognize that subcultures
cannot be viewed in isolation but are influenced by wider social, economic,
and cultural contexts. Therefore, while subcultures may play a role in
educational failure, it is crucial to examine the systemic forces and structural
inequalities that intersect with subcultures to provide a more comprehensive
understanding of educational outcomes.
Applying material from Item B and your own knowledge, evaluate the
view that the main role of the education system is to establish a value
consensus

The role of the education system in establishing a value consensus has long
been a topic of debate among sociologists. Proponents argue that education
plays a crucial role in transmitting shared values, norms, and beliefs, fostering
social cohesion and stability. However, critics argue that the education system
reflects and perpetuates existing inequalities, serving the interests of
dominant social groups. This essay will critically evaluate the view that the
main role of the education system is to establish a value consensus, drawing
on both the material from Item B and additional knowledge in sociology.

Functionalist sociologist Emile Durkheim provides valuable insights into the

role of education in establishing a value consensus. Durkheim argued that
education serves as the "moral backbone" of society, instilling shared values
and social solidarity in individuals. He emphasised the importance of
education in socialising individuals into a collective consciousness, where
they develop a sense of belonging and a shared understanding of moral
principles. For example, through subjects like history and citizenship
education, students learn about their nation's shared heritage, values, and
civic responsibilities. Durkheim's perspective highlights the significance of
education in fostering social integration and promoting a collective sense of
identity.
Durkheim's perspective on the role of education in establishing a value
consensus can be evaluated through the lens of Talcott Parsons. Parsons, a
functionalist sociologist, shares Durkheim's belief in the importance of
education for social integration and the transmission of shared values. He
argues that education serves as a mechanism for socialising individuals into
the norms and values of society, promoting social order and stability. Parsons'
support of Durkheim's view reinforces the idea that education plays a vital
role in establishing a value consensus within a society.

However, conflict theorists such as Pierre Bourdieu offer a critical perspective

on the role of education in establishing a value consensus. Bourdieu argued
that the education system perpetuates social inequalities by favouring the
cultural capital of dominant social groups. He highlighted the concept of
"habitus," which refers to the internalised dispositions and preferences
shaped by one's social class background. According to Bourdieu, the
education system reflects and reproduces the cultural values and practices of
the dominant class, creating barriers for students from disadvantaged
backgrounds. For instance, students from working-class backgrounds may
face difficulties in acquiring the cultural capital necessary to succeed in the
education system. Bourdieu's critique suggests that the education system
can reinforce existing social divisions rather than fostering a universal value
consensus.
Bourdieu's critique of the role of education in establishing a value consensus
can be evaluated using the work of Paul Willis. Willis, a neo-Marxist
sociologist, conducted ethnographic research on working-class boys in
schools and highlighted the ways in which they resisted the dominant values
and norms promoted by the education system. His study challenges
Bourdieu's notion that individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds are
passive recipients of cultural capital. Willis' research suggests that agency and
resistance can shape educational experiences, offering a nuanced perspective
on the establishment of a value consensus.

Interactionist sociologist Howard Becker's research on labelling theory

provides additional insights into the role of education in establishing a value
consensus. Becker argued that educational institutions play a significant role
in labelling and categorising students based on their perceived abilities and
behaviours. This labelling process can shape students' self-perception and
affect their educational outcomes. For example, students who are
stigmatised as "troublemakers" or "underachievers" may internalise these
labels and adopt behaviours that conform to these expectations. This can lead
to a self-fulfilling prophecy, where students fulfil the negative expectations
placed upon them. Becker's perspective suggests that the education system's
labelling practices can influence students' identities and contribute to the
establishment of a value consensus based on societal norms and
expectations.
Becker's perspective on the role of education in establishing a value
consensus can be evaluated through the work of Howard Becker himself and
Basil Bernstein. Becker's labelling theory, which emphasises the impact of
teacher expectations and societal labels on students' educational outcomes,
aligns with the view that education plays a significant role in shaping
individuals' identities and reinforcing social norms. Similarly, Bernstein's
research on language codes and their connection to social class differences
supports the idea that education contributes to the establishment of a value
consensus through language use and communication patterns.
Symbolic interactionist sociologist Basil Bernstein's work provides further
insights into the role of education in establishing a value consensus.
Bernstein argued that the education system reflects and perpetuates social
class differences through its language codes and modes of communication.
He introduced the concepts of "restricted code" and "elaborated code" to
explain how language use in education can either reinforce or challenge
existing power dynamics. The restricted code is associated with working-class
speech patterns, characterised by contextual and often implicit
communication. In contrast, the elaborated code, prevalent in middle-class
speech, is more abstract and explicit. According to Bernstein, the education
system predominantly values the elaborated code, which can disadvantage
students from working-class backgrounds. This highlights the influence of
language and communication patterns in shaping the value consensus
within the education system and perpetuating social inequalities.
Bernstein's perspective on the role of education in establishing a value
consensus can be evaluated using the work of Pierre Bourdieu. Bourdieu's
concept of cultural capital and his analysis of the role of education in
perpetuating social inequalities align with Bernstein's focus on language and
communication as reinforcing social class differences. Both sociologists
highlight the ways in which education reproduces and reinforces existing
social structures, contributing to the establishment of a value consensus that
may be skewed in favour of certain social groups.
Applying material from Item B and your own knowledge, evaluate the
claim that factors outside the school are the main cause of working-class
underachievement

The question at hand concerns the claim that factors outside the school are
the main cause of working-class underachievement. This essay aims to
evaluate this claim by examining the influence of external factors on
working-class educational attainment. Drawing upon material from Item B
and my own knowledge, this essay will provide a comprehensive analysis of
the various factors that contribute to working-class underachievement. It will
explore the role of socioeconomic background, cultural capital, and structural
inequalities in shaping educational outcomes for working-class students.

One perspective on working-class underachievement attributes it primarily to

socioeconomic background. Sociologist Pierre Bourdieu argues that the
economic and cultural resources possessed by individuals and their families
significantly impact educational attainment. Working-class students often
face economic hardships and limited access to educational resources, such as
private tutoring or enrichment activities. This can result in a lack of
educational support and hinder their academic progress. Furthermore,
Bourdieu emphasises the role of cultural capital, which refers to the
knowledge, skills, and behaviours valued in educational institutions.
Working-class students may lack the cultural capital necessary to navigate
academic settings and meet the expectations of the dominant middle-class
culture.
However, other sociologists, such as Stephen Gorard, critique Bourdieu's focus
on economic and cultural capital, arguing that it oversimplifies the complex
nature of educational inequality and neglects other factors that contribute to
working-class underachievement. Gorard's perspective emphasises the need
to consider a broader range of influences, including institutional practices and
educational policies, in understanding educational disparities.

Another perspective on working-class underachievement focuses on the

influence of structural inequalities. Sociologist Paul Willis conducted a
groundbreaking study known as "Learning to Labour" that explored the
experiences of working-class boys in school. Willis argues that the
working-class students he observed developed counter-school subcultures as
a response to their limited opportunities for upward social mobility. These
subcultures prioritise peer acceptance, resistance to authority, and
devaluation of academic achievement. Willis suggests that these subcultures
perpetuate working-class underachievement by undermining the value of
education and perpetuating cycles of low educational aspirations and
attainment.
However, critics like Louise Archer and colleagues (2010) argue that Willis's
study focused primarily on a specific group of working-class boys and may
not capture the diverse experiences of all working-class students. They
emphasise the need to consider intersectionality and multiple dimensions of
identity, such as gender and ethnicity, in understanding educational
outcomes among different social groups.

In addition to socioeconomic background and structural inequalities, the

home environment and parental involvement also play a crucial role in
working-class underachievement. Sociologist Annette Lareau's concept of
"concerted cultivation" highlights the differences in parenting styles and their
impact on educational outcomes. Middle-class parents are more likely to
engage in organised activities, provide educational materials, and actively
advocate for their children's educational success. In contrast, working-class
parents may face time and resource constraints, limiting their ability to
engage in similar forms of parental involvement. This disparity in parental
involvement can contribute to disparities in academic achievement between
social classes.
However, sociologists like Diane Reay (2001) critique the assumption that all
working-class parents lack the desire or capacity to be involved in their
children's education. Reay's research challenges the notion of "deficit"
parenting and emphasises the structural constraints that limit working-class
parents' involvement, such as long working hours and lack of access to
resources and opportunities.

However, it is important to consider the limitations and complexities of

attributing working-class underachievement solely to factors outside the
school. Sociologist Diane Reay argues that focusing solely on external factors
neglects the role of school practices and policies in perpetuating educational
inequalities. She highlights the impact of streaming, tracking, and labelling
practices that disproportionately affect working-class students and limit their
educational opportunities. These practices can reinforce stereotypes and
create a self-fulfilling prophecy, contributing to working-class
underachievement.
Sociologist Pierre Bourdieu's theory of cultural capital and the reproduction of
social inequality can be used to evaluate Diane Reay's perspective on
working-class underachievement. Bourdieu's theory suggests that individuals
from higher social classes possess cultural capital that gives them an
advantage in educational institutions, perpetuating social inequalities. Reay's
research aligns with this understanding, emphasising the role of wider
societal factors and policy decisions in shaping educational outcomes. By
incorporating Bourdieu's perspective, the evaluation strengthens Reay's
argument and underscores the need to address structural inequalities in
educational policies and promote equal opportunities for all students,
regardless of their social backgrounds.

Sociologist Pierre Bourdieu's theory of cultural capital and the reproduction of

social inequality can be used to evaluate Diane Reay's perspective on
working-class underachievement. Bourdieu's theory suggests that individuals
from higher social classes possess cultural capital that gives them an
advantage in educational institutions, perpetuating social inequalities. Reay's
research aligns with this understanding, emphasising the role of wider
societal factors and policy decisions in shaping educational outcomes. By
incorporating Bourdieu's perspective, the evaluation strengthens Reay's
argument and underscores the need to address structural inequalities in
educational policies and promote equal opportunities for all students,
regardless of their social backgrounds.

In conclusion, the evaluation of these perspectives reveals that factors outside

the school, such as socioeconomic background, cultural capital, structural
inequalities, and parental involvement, significantly influence working-class
underachievement. Sociologists such as Pierre Bourdieu, Paul Willis, Annette
Lareau, and Diane Reay provide valuable insights into the multifaceted nature
of this issue. While external factors undoubtedly play a significant role, it is
crucial to acknowledge the interplay between external factors and school
practices in perpetuating educational inequalities. A comprehensive
understanding of working-class underachievement requires addressing both
external factors and the role of schools in creating an inclusive and equitable
educational environment.