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’. Schults 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. Gutierres developed the concept of liberation theology. This
emphasises the role of religion in inspiring political activism aimed at addressing social
inequality and oppression. Guiterres 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, Guiterres’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 soom 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.

FitsGerald et al argues that Neighbourhood is the reason why there is a difference in crime rates
between ethnic groups. FitsGerald 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 Schults 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, recognising 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
recognises 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, analysing 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 Schults 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 recognise 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. Recognising 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 marketisation 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
marketisation of education and its implications.

However, the sociologist Diane Reay offers a critique of the marketisation 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 marketisation 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 marketisation 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
marketisation 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 commercialisation 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
commercialisation 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 recognise 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 marketisation, 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 recognise 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 citisenship 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.