Marcy Austin
Adult Education Instructor/Technology Director
When thinking about school, answer a few of these questions. The rest of this blog entry might help explain your deeply seated beliefs, values, and attitudes that influenced your feelings toward school.
- Did you get a job/ are you in a career that was influenced by how well you did (or did not do) in certain subjects/classes in school?
- If you did not do well in certain subjects or did not do well in school generally, do you blame yourself or your teachers?
- Did you/ do you depend on education to advance your career instead of gaining knowledge through job experience?
- Were you bored or felt stifled in school when it came to lessons or projects?
- Did you enjoy the structure of school and felt pride when you did well?
Whether you know it or not, society posed a deep influence on your relationship with learning and school. These beliefs and attitudes could still influence you and affect how you raise your children. Let us look at the sociological views on this topic, shall we?
Functional Theory Perspective of School: “It’s about us, and YOU are to blame!”
The functional theory perspective leans toward the conservative ideology of change in that there is an interest in maintaining order. There is not a major concern with the individual. The concern is with society. People are seen as expendable if we are not contributing to the functioning of society. Schooling is important in this aspect because of its ability to sort and select talent. By having the ability to sort and select talent, certain jobs and tasks that are necessary for the society to thrive will be filled. Related to this is the functional paradigm belief that we have an expert society in that we want the best to be in high positions. We want the computer geek who got all aces in science and math to fill our dental cavities, not the kid who ate his crayons. It is a fair and logical request, especially if you have dental troubles. This belief supports the idea of achievement because we have the belief and the educational structure that ensures the best will rise to the top. The functional paradigm believes that we have a meritocratic society in that merit is built upon work done. It is a belief that all individuals have the same ability to achieve. This is a way to maintain order. For example, if a person believes that they have the same advantages as others, they will not question the structure, therefore, it is easier to maintain order. Sorting is done through a variety of ways, specifically, testing which can be done visually, by age, or appropriateness of behavior. In the functional paradigm, cognitive skills provide the crucial link between education and jobs. This is another reason why schooling is important in that it exists to help the society function and thrive. In the functional perspective, there is a need to have more likeness than differences to maintain control. Think “cookie cutter” schooling. Because of this need for sameness, the range of appropriate behavior becomes quite narrow.
Conflict Paradigm of School: “Mr. Rogers was right…you ARE special!”
The conflict paradigm sees the purpose of the educational institution much differently than the functional paradigm. Instead of wanting likeness, the conflict perspective sees sameness as a problem because individual features are not seen as a major characteristic to be evaluated. The individual is not viewed as a person, but rather, an item to be utilized for the betterment of society. In the functional perspective, the individual remains unimportant as the well-being of the society is considered to be the crucial aspect. The conflict paradigm sees schooling as perpetuating inequality and inferiority. The perspective here is each individual is unique and forcing these dynamic individuals through the same institution with a singular structure just will not do in our world. In the conflict perspective, it is about who you are, not necessarily what you can or cannot do for and consequently, within society. The conflict model believes schools serve the interest of elites, reinforcing existing inequalities and producing attitudes that foster acceptance of the status quo. This means that the powerful and dominant groups and ideological positions will define the norms and social structure. It is, within reason, an idea that isn’t too far-fetched considering our modern school system came from Horace Mann, a Caucasian male who had the privilege of being a lawyer and holding a powerful position on the education board and enacted major changes to the school system. It is no doubt the man had merit in the view of the functionalist. I doubt that he would be able to predict that wealthy actress, Lori Laughlin would use her money and fame to get her child into an elite school. However, unlike the functional paradigm belief that the meritocratic society is a positive aspect and helps those individuals that believe this idea, the conflict paradigm suggests that our behavior does not support the meritocratic society. After all, if we are a different race or social class, do we still receive the same schooling, choices, and chances? It is something to consider, certainly.
Functionalist and Conflict Paradigms in Society and School “Who Can We Blame For This?”
According to the functionalist paradigm, the meritocratic society provides equal opportunity to all individuals to achieve. The conflict paradigm believes society perpetuates inequality and inferiority, thus, our behavior does not parallel with the meritocratic belief of equality. Specifically, because of this, not everyone will have an equal chance of becoming the best. The conflict paradigm also believes that the meritocracy idea we keep will control us and keep us in order so we do not revolt. In turn, we become victims because we internalize it if we do not get the merit, the big money, or the prize of the American dream when in reality, it was a structural issue and not a personal failure. For example, if a person is not given an equal opportunity to attend a school, because of the belief that we have a meritocratic society, we will not revolt against that institution, but we will internalize that failure and take it on as our own when the structure was the true cause of the failure according to the conflict paradigm. Ultimately, both sides possess logical views and make valid points; however, it is up to the schools and instructors to consider each side of the spectrum and strike a proper balance that benefits both learners and the community. The same daunting task holds true for educators when creating daily lesson plans, designing curricula, and defining learning goals. Each learner stands as a dynamic individual, but part of our job is ensuring success that remains internalized by the individual and recognized within the larger society.
Visit us on Facebook!