What is education for Essay

A successful teaching professional requires more than strong subject knowledge. It is important to ensure awareness of the learners’ personal and social background to be able to support the learning experience. Furthermore there is requirement for the understanding of psychology and sociology in a “classroom”, There is also a requirement to have a depth of knowledge how education has developed over the last few decades. To understand the role of sociology in education this essay examines: what is education for? This discussion draws upon examples of research, with reference to Neo-Marxism, Interactionism and Feminism as sociological perspectives on education and training. An evaluation of each perspective in terms of strengths and weaknesses on education will follow. Finally briefly looking into how each perspective sees’ the role of education and what education does for society, economy and culture according to them. But what is education?
Lauder et al (2006) states “Education is the influence exercised by adult generations on those not yet ready for social life” (pp 80). Not only does it teach the formal curriculum, it also develops morals, principles and behaviours, perhaps most importantly it prepares young people for society. For example the UK government according to their “white paper ” on The Importance of Teaching state “it is unacceptable for educational attainment to be affected by gender, disability, race, social class or any other factor unrelated to ability. Indeed, every child deserves a good education and every child should achieve high standards”. Not everyone believes in such equal attainment.
Neo-Marxism for one; founded by Karl Marx (1818-1883) a revolutionary sociologist, believed in “every child” receiving an education although not necessarily achieving that high a level, Marx believed in the differentiation of middle and working class education thus preparing students for their respective roles in society. Marxism is a “macro level” perspective, which looks at the bigger picture, sociologist of education look at whole societies, their structure and change, carried out by fixed questionnaires and structured interviews. Gerwitz (2009) cites “put simply, according to Marx, capitalist economies require domination and exploitation of the working class” (pp 34). Working class are taught obedience and compliance through learning in a school akin to a factory, a distinct division of labour and structure. Whereas, according to Bowles and Gintis “the elite schooled children are prepared for managerial and professional roles through teacher student relationships, self-directed learning and skills in leadership.”
Furthermore Allman (2001) supports this perspective by suggesting Marxism is the “most complete interpretation of the nature of capitalism and the greatest barriers to understanding is the misinterpretation of Marx’s work” (pp 375). This implies an importance is levied on education, being this is viewed as the initial stage of an individual’s social transformation. Allman continues by claiming that “some of our finest minds remain within the parameters of capitalisation and liberal democracy”, although no names were given. Moving forward, the concept of class is still as meaningful today as it was in the past. For example when reviewing the acceptance into elite institutions such as Oxford or Cambridge, perhaps this reinforces a Marxist system of education (With just 11.5% of its intake coming from working-class families, Oxford is bottom in this particular table. Cambridge is next, with 12.6%, and Bristol, another member of the Russell Group, comes in third at 14.2%, Guardian 28/09/10). McLaren and Jarmillo (2010) believe that Marxism should be connected with “everyday social relations”, they also go on to say how Marxism has a use in scientific analysis due to its “political philosophy containing ideas, insights and arguments, as well as developing diverse social practices” ( pp 252). Not all researchers would agree with Allman from a Marx perspective.
The current debate about the positive effects of Marxism is challenged by Gerwitz, stating that “the Marxism educational system produces alienation and dissatisfaction amongst the working class which has a destabilising effect, threatening the smooth functioning of the economy and the ability of capitalists to accumulate wealth” ( pp 34). Neo-Marxism looks at the smooth functioning of a society and does not take into regard whose interests this perspective serves, no individuality, rather the society considered as a whole. Neo-Marxism educational view can also affect the teacher and their role in education, controlling a teacher’s work with regards to standards and assessment can contribute to the failure of individuals (Balarin et al. 2011: 130). Bowles and Gintis (1976) believed there was a direct link between organisation of schools and organisation of society, “until society is changed there is little hope of school reform”. According to Sadovnik (2011) “Marxism places too much emphasis on independent affects of the economy and not enough on effects of cultural, social and political factors (pp 6). Educating the middle class for professionals in society and leaving working class to do the labour. Other perspectives believe in a more individual approach, rather than looking at “the bigger picture”.
In contrast, Interactionism (interpretive) is a micro level perspective. Here sociologist look at the perspectives and actions of individuals, groups and particular settings or specific events and the relationships or outcomes gained, carried out by observations and less structured interviews (Gerwitz, 2009: pp 29). “people interpret or give meaning to their environment and themselves, the ways in which they do this are shaped by the particular cultures in which they live, generating actions and institutions in which they participate” (tlrp.org). Furthermore education is of particular interest when reviewing the interactionism perspective. For example how teachers perspectives are constructed, how educational activities are defined and qualitative methods of realities of the classroom and institutional life give rise to “a place in society”.
Additionally Woods (1983) supports interactionism postulating that “it not only induces reflexivity (circular relationship between cause and effect) and analysis of one’s own thought, motive and action but also draws attention to all other participants in a situation” (pp 175). This analysis leads to a greater awareness of oneself and others. According to Sadovnik (pp 8), interactionism studies interactions between students: students and students: teachers, it is these interactions that appear to build positive relationships, motivation and provide a deeper level of learning experience. These individually focused interactions place importance on the knowledge gained by the learner and their ability to use it, whilst reflecting on what they have learned and applying it. This type of education learning builds motivation and ambition to continue to succeed, making them important within their local and wider society.
Interestingly, Woods highlights that more thought is required for “formal” theory. His belief appears to be the discovery of more fundamental processes with expanded applicability. Reviews carried out through the Teaching and Learning Research Programme (TLRP) agrees with elements of Woods. For example “that the sort of descriptions interactionism encourages are too vague or variable to provide a sound basis for comparing the orientations of different people, the character of different situations or institutions”. The TLRP go further and state that it encourages study of a small number of cases, perhaps just one, thereby failing to provide a platform for broader conclusions, the latter being essential in social science. Whilst Sadovnik looks at the negative elements of interactionism: mentioning that “examining the micro level or interactional aspects of school life is less likely to create logical theories without meaningful content” (pp 8). It makes sense that Marxist would agree and claim that interactionism neglects the macro level of social perspectives and may miss the larger issues of society by focusing too closely on the “trees” instead of the “forest”.
The final perspective is feminism, another micro level sociological perspective. According to Gerwitz (2009) “dismantling and challenging of the sexual division of labour, gendered distribution of social roles and men’s oppression/ dominance over women” (pp 54). Feminism therefore is a very diverse title, it is not a “clear-cut” perspective as Neo-Marxism or Interactionism There are many labels within feminism, looking at many perspectives collectively or that may indeed overlap, such as the influence of class, race, gender, sexuality and dis/ability. Gerwitz (2009) states “the focus is on identifying barriers of equal access to opportunities in both education and economy” (pp 54).
Gerwitz supports feminism in education by highlighting teachers whilst respecting “difference” without reinforcing inequality also ensure their learners gain knowledge that provides equal access to opportunities, both personally and professionally. Simplistically; a teacher that embraces diversity, does not label a learner and allows that learner to gain positive perspectives on upcoming opportunities. Sadovnik agrees by referring to “feminist educational theorists promoting alternative pedagogies to interrupt sexist gender socialisation and attainment gap, from 1990’s this gap closed with females out performing males in most subjects” (pp 17). Interestingly, teachers began to challenge ways in which gender categories were constructed, reproduced and transmitted through schooling, such as social order and gendered principles for the distribution of power. Sadovnik states “the conservative government of the 1980/1990’s, despite supporting the Victorian gender structures, undermined the male role as head of house/ breadwinner and created the educational conditions for change in gender relations” (pp 247). Although Coffey makes reference to females being less “powerful” in the classroom, she does highlight that in most primary schools and many secondary schools the female is more prevalent at the “chalk face”.
However, there are negative views towards methods of feminism in education, Sadovnik (2011) states, “whilst a change in legislation to remove sex discrimination in education had been attempted and promoted greater awareness, there was little top down reform of schooling in the name of gender equality” (pp 245). This top down reform refers to government and heads of institutions not making changes in line with this new awareness. He goes on further to highlight “when equality was a matter of public concern, responsibility was delegated or left to teachers” (pp 245). This gave rise to some small scale school based initiatives although had minimal national impact. Sadovnick (2011) suggest these initiatives failed due to two main reasons; “change of educational practice and attainment levels were not repeated elsewhere and secondly the initiatives were not applied for long enough or on a significant scale” (pp 246). Sadovnik continues by implying feminists began manipulating situations of reforms “integrating equality of opportunity” into debates about standards, performance and good schools.
Having investigated three sociological perspectives, their strengths and weaknesses with regards to education it has become apparent in my opinion that all three (and others that may not have been introduced in this discussion) exist in current education. Whilst the ideal is to believe that education is freely available to all and offer equal opportunities to each individual, there are still barriers. Some further education institutions exist for the “elite”, making it harder for strong academic working class students to enrol, generally due to cost, parental careers and the institution attended to gain previous qualifications, falling into Neo Marxism as a divide between middle and working class. Glossy brochures still depict a gender based course choice, such as males in a science laboratory and females in a hair salon, gender issues of feminism ever present. Teachers being passionate and dynamic in providing a multi-model learning experience, motivating their learners, hit barriers of social and parental perceptions and the student feels too much pressure to continue to try and succeed. This falls into both interactionism as affects may have been caused by one on one relationships, and Marxism as parents/ peers have preconceived ideas as to “their place in society”.
This discussion has drawn upon examples of research, with reference to Neo-Marxism, Interactionism and Feminism as sociological perspectives on education and training, evaluating each perspective in terms of strengths and weaknesses on education. Education is an institution that is constantly changing with economy and society to provide a work force, professionals and specialists to fulfil the roles required; all perspectives support this from their own view point. The UK Governments White Paper on The Importance of Teaching concurs that we have one of the most stratified and segregated school systems in the world, with a gap between our private schools and the state system wider than in almost any other developed country. So the question is still unanswered: What is Education for?
(2044 words)

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allman, P. Critical Education against Global Capitalism: Karl Marx and Revolutionary Critical Education. Oxford University Press and Community Development Journal. 2002. Pp 375-377
Bowles, S and Gintis, H. Schooling in Capitalist America. 1976. Routledge. London
Coffey, A and Delamont, S. Feminism and the Classroom Teacher: Research, Praxis and Pedagogy. 2000. Routledge. London.
Fielding, R. Interactionist Sociology of Education. British Journal of Sociology of Education. 1984. Vol 5/1. pp 89-95.
Gewirtz, S and Cribb, A. Understanding Education A Sociological Perspective. 2009. Polity Press. Cambridge.
Lauder, H. Brown, P. Dillabough, J and Hasley, A. Education, Globalisation and Social Change. 2006. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
McLaren, P and Jaramillo, N. Not Neo-Marxist, Not Post-Marxist, Not Marxian, Not Autonomist Marxism: Reflections on a Revolutionary (Marxist) Critical Pedagogy. Cultural Studies <=> Critical Methodologies. 2010. Vol 10/3. pp 251-262
Sadovnik, A. Sociology of Education 2nd Edition. 2011. Routledge. Abingdon.
Woods, P. Sociology and the School: an Interactionist Viewpoint. 1983. Routledge and Kegan Paul. London
Zeng, L. Exploration in Classroom Teaching of “Introduction to the Basic Principles of Marxism” in Universities. Asian Social Sciences. 2011. Vol 7/12. pp 206-210.

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/261282/CM-7980-Impact_equalities.pdf : 18/11/2014. 19:52 pm. www.tlrp.org: Methodological Paradigms in Education Research. An Outline of Methodological Approaches. 12/11/14. 10:15am. www.theguardian.com/education/2010/sep/28/working-class-students-posh-universities : 19/11/2014. 21:53 pm

Bibliography: Allman, P. Critical Education against Global Capitalism: Karl Marx and Revolutionary Critical Education. Oxford University Press and Community Development Journal. 2002. Pp 375-377 Bowles, S and Gintis, H Coffey, A and Delamont, S. Feminism and the Classroom Teacher: Research, Praxis and Pedagogy. 2000. Routledge. London. Fielding, R. Interactionist Sociology of Education. British Journal of Sociology of Education. 1984. Vol 5/1. pp 89-95. Gewirtz, S and Cribb, A. Understanding Education A Sociological Perspective. 2009. Polity Press. Cambridge. Lauder, H. Brown, P. Dillabough, J and Hasley, A. Education, Globalisation and Social Change. 2006. Oxford University Press. Oxford. McLaren, P and Jaramillo, N. Not Neo-Marxist, Not Post-Marxist, Not Marxian, Not Autonomist Marxism: Reflections on a Revolutionary (Marxist) Critical Pedagogy. Cultural Studies <=> Critical Methodologies. 2010. Vol 10/3. pp 251-262 Sadovnik, A Woods, P. Sociology and the School: an Interactionist Viewpoint. 1983. Routledge and Kegan Paul. London Zeng, L