education key points sociology

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

16.2 Sociological Perspectives on Education

Learning objectives.

• List the major functions of education.
• Explain the problems that conflict theory sees in education.
• Describe how symbolic interactionism understands education.

The major sociological perspectives on education fall nicely into the functional, conflict, and symbolic interactionist approaches (Ballantine & Hammack, 2009). Table 16.1 “Theory Snapshot” summarizes what these approaches say.

Table 16.1 Theory Snapshot

The Functions of Education

Functional theory stresses the functions that education serves in fulfilling a society’s various needs. Perhaps the most important function of education is socialization . If children need to learn the norms, values, and skills they need to function in society, then education is a primary vehicle for such learning. Schools teach the three Rs, as we all know, but they also teach many of the society’s norms and values. In the United States, these norms and values include respect for authority, patriotism (remember the Pledge of Allegiance?), punctuality, individualism, and competition. Regarding these last two values, American students from an early age compete as individuals over grades and other rewards. The situation is quite the opposite in Japan, where, as we saw in Chapter 4 “Socialization” , children learn the traditional Japanese values of harmony and group belonging from their schooling (Schneider & Silverman, 2010). They learn to value their membership in their homeroom, or kumi , and are evaluated more on their kumi ’s performance than on their own individual performance. How well a Japanese child’s kumi does is more important than how well the child does as an individual.

A second function of education is social integration . For a society to work, functionalists say, people must subscribe to a common set of beliefs and values. As we saw, the development of such common views was a goal of the system of free, compulsory education that developed in the 19th century. Thousands of immigrant children in the United States today are learning English, U.S. history, and other subjects that help prepare them for the workforce and integrate them into American life. Such integration is a major goal of the English-only movement, whose advocates say that only English should be used to teach children whose native tongue is Spanish, Vietnamese, or whatever other language their parents speak at home. Critics of this movement say it slows down these children’s education and weakens their ethnic identity (Schildkraut, 2005).

A third function of education is social placement . Beginning in grade school, students are identified by teachers and other school officials either as bright and motivated or as less bright and even educationally challenged. Depending on how they are identified, children are taught at the level that is thought to suit them best. In this way they are prepared in the most appropriate way possible for their later station in life. Whether this process works as well as it should is an important issue, and we explore it further when we discuss school tracking shortly.

Social and cultural innovation is a fourth function of education. Our scientists cannot make important scientific discoveries and our artists and thinkers cannot come up with great works of art, poetry, and prose unless they have first been educated in the many subjects they need to know for their chosen path.

Figure 16.1 The Functions of Education

Schools ideally perform many important functions in modern society. These include socialization, social integration, social placement, and social and cultural innovation.

Education also involves several latent functions, functions that are by-products of going to school and receiving an education rather than a direct effect of the education itself. One of these is child care . Once a child starts kindergarten and then first grade, for several hours a day the child is taken care of for free. The establishment of peer relationships is another latent function of schooling. Most of us met many of our friends while we were in school at whatever grade level, and some of those friendships endure the rest of our lives. A final latent function of education is that it keeps millions of high school students out of the full-time labor force . This fact keeps the unemployment rate lower than it would be if they were in the labor force.

Education and Inequality

Conflict theory does not dispute most of the functions just described. However, it does give some of them a different slant and talks about various ways in which education perpetuates social inequality (Hill, Macrine, & Gabbard, 2010; Liston, 1990). One example involves the function of social placement. As most schools track their students starting in grade school, the students thought by their teachers to be bright are placed in the faster tracks (especially in reading and arithmetic), while the slower students are placed in the slower tracks; in high school, three common tracks are the college track, vocational track, and general track.

Such tracking does have its advantages; it helps ensure that bright students learn as much as their abilities allow them, and it helps ensure that slower students are not taught over their heads. But, conflict theorists say, tracking also helps perpetuate social inequality by locking students into faster and lower tracks. Worse yet, several studies show that students’ social class and race and ethnicity affect the track into which they are placed, even though their intellectual abilities and potential should be the only things that matter: white, middle-class students are more likely to be tracked “up,” while poorer students and students of color are more likely to be tracked “down.” Once they are tracked, students learn more if they are tracked up and less if they are tracked down. The latter tend to lose self-esteem and begin to think they have little academic ability and thus do worse in school because they were tracked down. In this way, tracking is thought to be good for those tracked up and bad for those tracked down. Conflict theorists thus say that tracking perpetuates social inequality based on social class and race and ethnicity (Ansalone, 2006; Oakes, 2005).

Social inequality is also perpetuated through the widespread use of standardized tests. Critics say these tests continue to be culturally biased, as they include questions whose answers are most likely to be known by white, middle-class students, whose backgrounds have afforded them various experiences that help them answer the questions. They also say that scores on standardized tests reflect students’ socioeconomic status and experiences in addition to their academic abilities. To the extent this critique is true, standardized tests perpetuate social inequality (Grodsky, Warren, & Felts, 2008).

As we will see, schools in the United States also differ mightily in their resources, learning conditions, and other aspects, all of which affect how much students can learn in them. Simply put, schools are unequal, and their very inequality helps perpetuate inequality in the larger society. Children going to the worst schools in urban areas face many more obstacles to their learning than those going to well-funded schools in suburban areas. Their lack of learning helps ensure they remain trapped in poverty and its related problems.

Conflict theorists also say that schooling teaches a hidden curriculum , by which they mean a set of values and beliefs that support the status quo, including the existing social hierarchy (Booher-Jennings, 2008) (see Chapter 4 “Socialization” ). Although no one plots this behind closed doors, our schoolchildren learn patriotic values and respect for authority from the books they read and from various classroom activities.

Symbolic Interactionism and School Behavior

Symbolic interactionist studies of education examine social interaction in the classroom, on the playground, and in other school venues. These studies help us understand what happens in the schools themselves, but they also help us understand how what occurs in school is relevant for the larger society. Some studies, for example, show how children’s playground activities reinforce gender-role socialization. Girls tend to play more cooperative games, while boys play more competitive sports (Thorne, 1993) (see Chapter 11 “Gender and Gender Inequality” ).

Another body of research shows that teachers’ views about students can affect how much the students learn. When teachers think students are smart, they tend to spend more time with them, to call on them, and to praise them when they give the right answer. Not surprisingly these students learn more because of their teachers’ behavior. But when teachers think students are less bright, they tend to spend less time with them and act in a way that leads the students to learn less. One of the first studies to find this example of a self-fulfilling prophecy was conducted by Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson (1968). They tested a group of students at the beginning of the school year and told their teachers which students were bright and which were not. They tested the students again at the end of the school year; not surprisingly the bright students had learned more during the year than the less bright ones. But it turned out that the researchers had randomly decided which students would be designated bright and less bright. Because the “bright” students learned more during the school year without actually being brighter at the beginning, their teachers’ behavior must have been the reason. In fact, their teachers did spend more time with them and praised them more often than was true for the “less bright” students. To the extent this type of self-fulfilling prophecy occurs, it helps us understand why tracking is bad for the students tracked down.

Research guided by the symbolic interactionist perspective suggests that teachers’ expectations may influence how much their students learn. When teachers expect little of their students, their students tend to learn less.

ijiwaru jimbo – Pre-school colour pack – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Other research focuses on how teachers treat girls and boys. Several studies from the 1970s through the 1990s found that teachers call on boys more often and praise them more often (American Association of University Women Educational Foundation, 1998; Jones & Dindia, 2004). Teachers did not do this consciously, but their behavior nonetheless sent an implicit message to girls that math and science are not for girls and that they are not suited to do well in these subjects. This body of research stimulated efforts to educate teachers about the ways in which they may unwittingly send these messages and about strategies they could use to promote greater interest and achievement by girls in math and science (Battey, Kafai, Nixon, & Kao, 2007).

Key Takeaways

• According to the functional perspective, education helps socialize children and prepare them for their eventual entrance into the larger society as adults.
• The conflict perspective emphasizes that education reinforces inequality in the larger society.
• The symbolic interactionist perspective focuses on social interaction in the classroom, on school playgrounds, and at other school-related venues. Social interaction contributes to gender-role socialization, and teachers’ expectations may affect their students’ performance.

For Your Review

• Review how the functionalist, conflict, and symbolic interactionist perspectives understand and explain education. Which of these three approaches do you most prefer? Why?

American Association of University Women Educational Foundation. (1998). Gender gaps: Where schools still fail our children . Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.

Ansalone, G. (2006). Tracking: A return to Jim Crow. Race, Gender & Class, 13 , 1–2.

Ballantine, J. H., & Hammack, F. M. (2009). The sociology of education: A systematic analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Battey, D., Kafai, Y., Nixon, A. S., & Kao, L. L. (2007). Professional development for teachers on gender equity in the sciences: Initiating the conversation. Teachers College Record, 109 (1), 221–243.

Booher-Jennings, J. (2008). Learning to label: Socialisation, gender, and the hidden curriculum of high-stakes testing. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29 , 149–160.

Grodsky, E., Warren, J. R., & Felts, E. (2008). Testing and social stratification in American education. Annual Review of Sociology, 34 (1), 385–404.

Hill, D., Macrine, S., & Gabbard, D. (Eds.). (2010). Capitalist education: Globalisation and the politics of inequality . New York, NY: Routledge; Liston, D. P. (1990). Capitalist schools: Explanation and ethics in radical studies of schooling . New York, NY: Routledge.

Jones, S. M., & Dindia, K. (2004). A meta-analystic perspective on sex equity in the classroom. Review of Educational Research, 74 , 443–471.

Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom . New York, NY: Holt.

Schildkraut, D. J. (2005). Press “one” for English: Language policy, public opinion, and American identity . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Schneider, L., & Silverman, A. (2010). Global sociology: Introducing five contemporary societies (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Thorne, B. (1993). Gender play: Girls and boys in school . New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Sociology Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

16.2 Theoretical Perspectives on Education

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you should be able to:

• Define manifest and latent functions of education
• Explain and discuss how functionalism, conflict theory, feminism, and interactionism view issues of education

While it is clear that education plays an integral role in individuals’ lives as well as society as a whole, sociologists view that role from many diverse points of view. Functionalists believe that education equips people to perform different functional roles in society. Conflict theorists view education as a means of widening the gap in social inequality. Feminist theorists point to evidence that sexism in education continues to prevent women from achieving a full measure of social equality. Symbolic interactionists study the dynamics of the classroom, the interactions between students and teachers, and how those affect everyday life. In this section, you will learn about each of these perspectives.

Functionalism

Functionalists view education as one of the more important social institutions in a society. They contend that education contributes two kinds of functions: manifest (or primary) functions, which are the intended and visible functions of education; and latent (or secondary) functions, which are the hidden and unintended functions.

Manifest Functions

There are several major manifest functions associated with education. The first is socialization. Beginning in preschool and kindergarten, students are taught to practice various societal roles. The French sociologist Émile Durkheim (1858–1917), who established the academic discipline of sociology, characterized schools as “socialization agencies that teach children how to get along with others and prepare them for adult economic roles” (Durkheim 1898). Indeed, it seems that schools have taken on this responsibility in full.

This socialization also involves learning the rules and norms of the society as a whole. In the early days of compulsory education, students learned the dominant culture. Today, since the culture of the United States is increasingly diverse, students may learn a variety of cultural norms, not only that of the dominant culture.

School systems in the United States also transmit the core values of the nation through manifest functions like social control. One of the roles of schools is to teach students conformity to law and respect for authority. Obviously, such respect, given to teachers and administrators, will help a student navigate the school environment. This function also prepares students to enter the workplace and the world at large, where they will continue to be subject to people who have authority over them. Fulfillment of this function rests primarily with classroom teachers and instructors who are with students all day.

Education also provides one of the major methods used by people for upward social mobility. This function is referred to as social placement . College and graduate schools are viewed as vehicles for moving students closer to the careers that will give them the financial freedom and security they seek. As a result, college students are often more motivated to study areas that they believe will be advantageous on the social ladder. A student might value business courses over a class in Victorian poetry because she sees business class as a stronger vehicle for financial success.

Latent Functions

Education also fulfills latent functions. As you well know, much goes on in a school that has little to do with formal education. For example, you might notice an attractive fellow student when he gives a particularly interesting answer in class—catching up with him and making a date speaks to the latent function of courtship fulfilled by exposure to a peer group in the educational setting.

The educational setting introduces students to social networks that might last for years and can help people find jobs after their schooling is complete. Of course, with social media such as Facebook and LinkedIn, these networks are easier than ever to maintain. Another latent function is the ability to work with others in small groups, a skill that is transferable to a workplace and that might not be learned in a homeschool setting.

The educational system, especially as experienced on university campuses, has traditionally provided a place for students to learn about various social issues. There is ample opportunity for social and political advocacy, as well as the ability to develop tolerance to the many views represented on campus. In 2011, the Occupy Wall Street movement swept across college campuses all over the United States, leading to demonstrations in which diverse groups of students were unified with the purpose of changing the political climate of the country.

Functionalists recognize other ways that schools educate and enculturate students. One of the most important U.S. values students in the United States learn is that of individualism—the valuing of the individual over the value of groups or society as a whole. In countries such as Japan and China, where the good of the group is valued over the rights of the individual, students do not learn as they do in the United States that the highest rewards go to the “best” individual in academics as well as athletics. One of the roles of schools in the United States is fostering self-esteem; conversely, schools in Japan focus on fostering social esteem—the honoring of the group over the individual.

In the United States, schools also fill the role of preparing students for competition in life. Obviously, athletics foster a competitive nature, but even in the classroom students compete against one another academically. Schools also fill the role of teaching patriotism. Students recite the Pledge of Allegiance each morning and take history classes where they learn about national heroes and the nation’s past.

Another role of schools, according to functionalist theory, is that of sorting , or classifying students based on academic merit or potential. The most capable students are identified early in schools through testing and classroom achievements. Such students are placed in accelerated programs in anticipation of successful college attendance.

Functionalists also contend that school, particularly in recent years, is taking over some of the functions that were traditionally undertaken by family. Society relies on schools to teach about human sexuality as well as basic skills such as budgeting and job applications—topics that at one time were addressed by the family.

Conflict Theory

Conflict theorists do not believe that public schools reduce social inequality. Rather, they believe that the educational system reinforces and perpetuates social inequalities that arise from differences in class, gender, race, and ethnicity. Where functionalists see education as serving a beneficial role, conflict theorists view it more negatively. To them, educational systems preserve the status quo and push people of lower status into obedience.

The fulfillment of one’s education is closely linked to social class. Students of low socioeconomic status are generally not afforded the same opportunities as students of higher status, no matter how great their academic ability or desire to learn. Picture a student from a working-class home who wants to do well in school. On a Monday, he’s assigned a paper that’s due Friday. Monday evening, he has to babysit his younger sister while his divorced mother works. Tuesday and Wednesday, he works stocking shelves after school until 10:00 p.m. By Thursday, the only day he might have available to work on that assignment, he’s so exhausted he can’t bring himself to start the paper. His mother, though she’d like to help him, is so tired herself that she isn’t able to give him the encouragement or support he needs. And since English is her second language, she has difficulty with some of his educational materials. They also lack a computer and printer at home, which most of his classmates have, so they have to rely on the public library or school system for access to technology. As this story shows, many students from working-class families have to contend with helping out at home, contributing financially to the family, poor study environments and a lack of support from their families. This is a difficult match with education systems that adhere to a traditional curriculum that is more easily understood and completed by students of higher social classes.

Such a situation leads to social class reproduction, extensively studied by French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. He researched how cultural capital , or cultural knowledge that serves (metaphorically) as currency that helps us navigate a culture, alters the experiences and opportunities available to French students from different social classes. Members of the upper and middle classes have more cultural capital than do families of lower-class status. As a result, the educational system maintains a cycle in which the dominant culture’s values are rewarded. Instruction and tests cater to the dominant culture and leave others struggling to identify with values and competencies outside their social class. For example, there has been a great deal of discussion over what standardized tests such as the SAT truly measure. Many argue that the tests group students by cultural ability rather than by natural intelligence.

The cycle of rewarding those who possess cultural capital is found in formal educational curricula as well as in the hidden curriculum , which refers to the type of nonacademic knowledge that students learn through informal learning and cultural transmission. This hidden curriculum reinforces the positions of those with higher cultural capital and serves to bestow status unequally.

Conflict theorists point to tracking , a formalized sorting system that places students on “tracks” (advanced versus low achievers) that perpetuate inequalities. While educators may believe that students do better in tracked classes because they are with students of similar ability and may have access to more individual attention from teachers, conflict theorists feel that tracking leads to self-fulfilling prophecies in which students live up (or down) to teacher and societal expectations (Education Week 2004).

To conflict theorists, schools play the role of training working-class students to accept and retain their position as lower members of society. They argue that this role is fulfilled through the disparity of resources available to students in richer and poorer neighborhoods as well as through testing (Lauen and Tyson 2008).

IQ tests have been attacked for being biased—for testing cultural knowledge rather than actual intelligence. For example, a test item may ask students what instruments belong in an orchestra. To correctly answer this question requires certain cultural knowledge—knowledge most often held by more affluent people who typically have more exposure to orchestral music. Though experts in testing claim that bias has been eliminated from tests, conflict theorists maintain that this is impossible. These tests, to conflict theorists, are another way in which education does not provide opportunities, but instead maintains an established configuration of power.

Feminist Theory

Feminist theory aims to understand the mechanisms and roots of gender inequality in education, as well as their societal repercussions. Like many other institutions of society, educational systems are characterized by unequal treatment and opportunity for women. Almost two-thirds of the world’s 862 million illiterate people are women, and the illiteracy rate among women is expected to increase in many regions, especially in several African and Asian countries (UNESCO 2005; World Bank 2007).

Women in the United States have been relatively late, historically speaking, to be granted entry to the public university system. In fact, it wasn’t until the establishment of Title IX of the Education Amendments in 1972 that discriminating on the basis of sex in U.S. education programs became illegal. In the United States, there is also a post-education gender disparity between what male and female college graduates earn. A study released in May 2011 showed that, among men and women who graduated from college between 2006 and 2010, men out-earned women by an average of more than $5,000 each year. First-year job earnings for men averaged $33,150; for women the average was $28,000 (Godofsky, Zukin, and van Horn 2011). Similar trends are seen among salaries of professionals in virtually all industries.

When women face limited opportunities for education, their capacity to achieve equal rights, including financial independence, are limited. Feminist theory seeks to promote women’s rights to equal education (and its resultant benefits) across the world.

Sociology in the Real World

Grade inflation: when is an a really a c.

In 2019, news emerged of a criminal conspiracy regarding wealthy and, in some cases, celebrity parents who illegally secured college admission for their children. Over 50 people were implicated in the scandal, including employees from prestigious universities; several people were sentenced to prison. Their activity included manipulating test scores, falsifying students’ academic or athletic credentials, and acquiring testing accommodations through dishonest claims of having a disability.

One of the questions that emerged at the time was how the students at the subject of these efforts could succeed at these challenging and elite colleges. Meaning, if they couldn’t get in without cheating, they probably wouldn’t do well. Wouldn’t their lack of preparation quickly become clear?

Many people would say no. First, many of the students involved (the children of the conspirators) had no knowledge or no involvement of the fraud; those students may have been admitted anyway. But there may be another safeguard for underprepared students at certain universities: grade inflation.

Grade inflation generally refers to a practice of awarding students higher grades than they have earned. It reflects the observation that the relationship between letter grades and the achievements they reflect has been changing over time. Put simply, what used to be considered C-level, or average, now often earns a student a B, or even an A.

Some, including administrators at elite universities, argue that grade inflation does not exist, or that there are other factors at play, or even that it has benefits such as increased funding and elimination of inequality (Boleslavsky 2014). But the evidence reveals a stark change. Based on data compiled from a wide array of four-year colleges and universities, a widely cited study revealed that the number of A grades has been increasing by several percentage points per decade, and that A’s were the most common grade awarded (Jaschik 2016). In an anecdotal case, a Harvard dean acknowledged that the median grade there was an A-, and the most common was also an A. Williams College found that the number of A+ grades had grown from 212 instances in 2009-10 to 426 instances in 2017-18 (Berlinsky-Schine 2020). Princeton University took steps to reduce inflation by limiting the number of A’s that could be issued, though it then reversed course (Greason 2020).

Why is this happening? Some cite the alleged shift toward a culture that rewards effort instead of product, i.e., the amount of work a student puts in raises the grade, even if the resulting product is poor quality. Another oft-cited contributor is the pressure for instructors to earn positive course evaluations from their students. Finally, many colleges may accept a level of grade inflation because it works. Analysis and formal experiments involving graduate school admissions and hiring practices showed that students with higher grades are more likely to be selected for a job or a grad school. And those higher-grade applicants are still preferred even if decision-maker knows that the applicant’s college may be inflating grades (Swift 2013). In other words, people with high GPA at a school with a higher average GPA are preferred over people who have a high GPA at a school with a lower average GPA.

Ironically, grade inflation is not simply a college issue. Many of the same college faculty and administrators who encounter or engage in some level of grade inflation may lament that it is also occurring at high schools (Murphy 2017).

Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism sees education as one way that labeling theory is seen in action. A symbolic interactionist might say that this labeling has a direct correlation to those who are in power and those who are labeled. For example, low standardized test scores or poor performance in a particular class often lead to a student who is labeled as a low achiever. Such labels are difficult to “shake off,” which can create a self-fulfilling prophecy (Merton 1968).

In his book High School Confidential , Jeremy Iversen details his experience as a Stanford graduate posing as a student at a California high school. One of the problems he identifies in his research is that of teachers applying labels that students are never able to lose. One teacher told him, without knowing he was a bright graduate of a top university, that he would never amount to anything (Iversen 2006). Iversen obviously didn’t take this teacher’s false assessment to heart. But when an actual seventeen-year-old student hears this from a person with authority over her, it’s no wonder that the student might begin to “live down to” that label.

The labeling with which symbolic interactionists concern themselves extends to the very degrees that symbolize completion of education. Credentialism embodies the emphasis on certificates or degrees to show that a person has a certain skill, has attained a certain level of education, or has met certain job qualifications. These certificates or degrees serve as a symbol of what a person has achieved, and allows the labeling of that individual.

Indeed, as these examples show, labeling theory can significantly impact a student’s schooling. This is easily seen in the educational setting, as teachers and more powerful social groups within the school dole out labels that are adopted by the entire school population.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, Asha Lal Tamang
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Introduction to Sociology 3e
• Publication date: Jun 3, 2021
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/16-2-theoretical-perspectives-on-education

© Aug 5, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Sociology of Education: Meaning, Scope, Importance, Perspectives

Synopsis : This article explores the discipline of Sociology of Education, a branch of the broader subject of Sociology, through its meaning, history of development, significance, differences with Educational Sociology, and scope. It also portrays how education can be examined using the three main theoretical perspectives in sociology.

What is Sociology of Education ?

To understand what Sociology of Education comprises, it is, first and foremost, imperative to define education from a sociological understanding. In sociology, education is held to be a social institution that serves the objective of socializing an individual from their very birth into the systems of society. Henslin (2017) defines education as “a formal system” which engages in imparting knowledge to individuals, instilling morals and beliefs (which are at par with those of the culture and society), and providing formal training for skill development. In non-industrial, simple societies, the specific institution of education did not exist in society.

For quite a long period after it was established as a formal means of knowledge development, education was available only to those privileged enough to afford it. Requirements under industrialization to have literate workers for some jobs reshaped the structure of the education system to a great extent. Even in today’s world, the education system varies from one country to another due to various factors, ranging from cultural values to the availability of proper resources.

Sociology of Education is the discipline or field of study which deals with the institution of education, and all the other factors related to it, in society. Sociology of education is also defined as the academic discipline which “examines the ways in which individuals’ experiences affect their educational achievement and outcomes” (Williams, 2011). Scott (2014) states that the subject is “mostly concerned with schooling, and especially the mass schooling systems of modern industrial societies, including the expansion of higher, further, adult, and continuing education.”

In simple words, the discipline studies education as a social institution, and examines its functions, roles, and other behaviors within the broader social context, as well as how it influences individuals and is influenced reciprocally by them. It highlights the significance of education within the different cultures and other social groups, as well as assesses factors (such as economic, political, etc.) associated with the individuals which might affect their access to education. Some themes discussed within the field are modules or curriculum, testing methods (such as standardized testing), etc.

Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, Lancelot Hogben, Talcott Parsons , Pierre Bourdieu, James Coleman, John Wilfred Meyer, etc., are some scholars associated with the Sociology of Education. The discipline was made popular in India by scholars such as Madhav Sadashiv Gore, Akshay Ramanlal Desai, Yogendra Singh, and Shyama Charan Dube, among others (Pathania, 2013). 

Historical Background:

French sociologist Emile Durkheim was the person who helped establish Sociology as a formal educational discipline. Durkheim also became the first professor of sociology, the first individual to pursue a sociological understanding of the functioning of societies, and the foremost person to initiate a discussion on the sociology of education (Boronski & Hassan, 2020). He identified that the base of organic solidarity is moral education, in which self-discipline and keeping one’s desires in check are the essential principles of moral development.

With the advent of the Fabian Society, which was originally established in 1884, during the middle of the twentieth century, sociology of education began in its early stage in Britain.

Boronski & Hassan (2020) describe the Fabian society and its activities as the “political foundation” of the sociology of education in Britain. The methodology followed during this time was ‘political arithmetic’: examining the capability of education to result in a society that was more supportive of and characterized by democracy, and its related principles.

The intellectual roots of sociology of education in Britain lie in the influence of structural functionalism, strongly visible in both Britain and America. The British sociology of education saw a drastic shift to a more critical view of education during the 1970s and 1980s. This was termed as “New Sociology of Education (NSOE)”, which consisted of not one, but several different approaches to education, all of which, however, had a similar base: the system or institution of education was considered as fundamentally adverse to those belonging from the working class (Boronski & Hassan, 2020).

The feminist perspective of sociology grew apace in the education scenario, providing a bolder and enhanced voice to the agenda of the women’s movement, and literature on the same, such as those of Dale Spencer and Judy Samuel, also expanded. Today, the field of Sociology itself, and in particular, the sub-field of Sociology of Education faces a continuous and increasing demand to make the discipline more embracive by facilitating and encouraging the incorporation of involvement of the global South.

Theoretical Perspectives on Education :

The social institution of education can be examined using the three main theoretical perspectives in Sociology:

The second function is facilitating distribution or passing on of core cultural values, norms, beliefs, ideals, as well as patriotic feelings towards one’s country, and harmony towards fellow citizens. These are passed on from generation to generation to ensure that these values are kept intact.

Other functions vary from place to place and include providing childcare, providing nutrition (free midday meal systems), facilitating sex education and proper healthcare, diminishing the rate of unemployment, as well as ensuring security in society by keeping individuals in schools and away from corrupt activities (Henslin, 2017).

By implementing some latent and some visible rules, schools also promote the current social structures (such as capitalism: by encouraging competitive behavior and pitting students against one another based on test scores, social stratification: regions having lower-class students have poorly funded schools, etc.), thereby facilitating their existence rather than working towards their removal from society. 

Scope of Sociology of Education :

Sociology of Education covers a wide range of topics. Society and all other components within it, such as culture, class, race, gender, etc., the ongoing processes of socialization, acculturation, social organization, etc., and other factors such as status, roles, values, morals, etc., all fall under the inspection of this field of study (Satapathy, n.d.). Aligning the design of education according to geographical, ethnic, and linguistic necessities, and requirements of other population subgroups also falls under Sociology of Education. How economic background and situations, family structures and relations, friends, peer groups and teachers, and other more overarching social issues affect the personality, quality of education, and accessibility of opportunities to students is an integral point of consideration under Sociology of Education.

Significance of Studying Sociology of Education :

Dynamic nature of culture, the fact that culture varies from one place to another and sometimes even within the same region, and because education, culture, and society affect each other drastically, it is important to have an understanding of the relationship between these so that education can be used effectively as a tool for human advancement (Satapathy, n.d.). Sociology of Education helps in facilitating that.

Sociology of Education also provides greater knowledge about human behavior, clarity on how people organize themselves in society and helps unravel and simplify the complexities within human society (Ogechi, 2011). Because education, whether in the formal, institutionalized form or otherwise, is one of the few components in human society which more or less remains constant across cultures, it becomes an important tool to analyze and interpret human societies.

The discipline also enhances one’s understanding of the position education occupies in society, and the roles it plays in the lives of humans (Ogechi, 2011). At the same time, it helps develop knowledge about the benefits as well as the shortcomings of education and devise policies to make the institution more beneficial for society by facilitating an analytical examination.

Differences between Educational Sociology and Sociology of Education :

Although the two are related, Sociology of Education is distinctly different from Educational Sociology in certain factors. Sociology of education is the process of scientifically investigating the institution of education within the society–how the society affects it, how education influences people in the society in return, and the problems which might occur as a result of the interaction between the two (Chathu, 2017). Educational Sociology also deals with these, but where Sociology of Education is a more theory-based study, Educational Sociology focuses on applying principles in sociology to the entire system of education and how it operates within the society. In other words, Sociology of Education studies the practices within the social institution of education using sociological concepts, while Educational Sociology engages in the practical application of understandings developed through sociological research into education (Bhat, 2016).

In the same context, Sociology of Education views education as a part of the larger society, and hence the institution is analyzed both as a separate unit, as well as by considering it alongside other factors in society (Bhat, 2016). Therefore, the discipline tries to form a relationship between education and other facets of society and seeks to understand how education affects these different components of the society, and vice versa (for example, how education ingrains gender roles, as well as how pre-existing gender roles affect the quality, quantity, availability, and access to education). Educational Sociology, on the other hand, aims to provide solutions to the problems which occur in education (Bhat, 2016). In doing so, the discipline views education as a separate entity within society.

Bhat, M. S. (2016). EDU-C-Sociological foundations of education-I . https://www.cukashmir.ac.in/departmentdocs_16/Education%20&%20Sociology%20-%20Dr.%20Mohd%20Sayid%20Bhat.pdf

Boronski, T., & Hassan, N. (2020). Sociology of education (2nd ed.). Editorial: Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington Dc, Melbourne Sage.

Ogechi, R. (2011). QUESTION: Discuss the importance of sociology of education to both teachers and students. Academia . https://www.academia.edu/37732576/QUESTION_Discuss_the_importance_

Pathania, G. J. (2013). Sociology of Education. Economic and Political Weekly , 48 (50), 29–31. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24479041

Williams, S. M. (2011). Sociology of education. Education . https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0065

Module 12: Education

Functionalist theory on education, learning outcomes.

• Describe the functionalist view on education, including the manifest and latent functions of education

Functionalism

Manifest functions.

There are several major manifest functions associated with education. The first is socialization. Beginning in preschool and kindergarten, students are taught to practice various societal roles that extend beyond the school setting. The French sociologist Émile Durkheim (1858–1917), who is regarded as one of the founders of the academic discipline of sociology, characterized schools as “socialization agencies that teach children how to get along with others and prepare them for adult economic roles” (Durkheim 1898). Indeed, it seems that schools have taken on this responsibility in full.

This socialization also involves learning the rules and norms of the society as a whole. In the early days of compulsory education, students learned the dominant culture. Today, since the culture of the United States is increasingly diverse, students may learn a variety of cultural norms, not only that of the dominant culture. Conflict theorists, as we will discuss in the next section, would argue that we continue to instill dominant values in schools.

School systems in the United States also transmit the core values of the nation through manifest functions like social control. One of the roles of schools is to teach students conformity to law and respect for authority. Obviously, such respect, given to teachers and administrators, will help a student navigate the school environment. By organizing schools as bureaucracies, much like what is found in the labor market and in other social institutions, schools teach children what is commonly referred to as “the hidden curriculum.” We will expand on this in the following section on conflict theory. This function also prepares students to enter the workplace and the world at large, where they will continue to be subject to people who have authority over them. Fulfillment of this function rests primarily with classroom teachers and instructors who are with students all day.

Education also provides one of the major methods used by people for upward social mobility through allowing individuals of all social backgrounds to gain credentials that will broaden their prospects in the future. This function is referred to as social placement . Colleges and graduate schools are viewed as vehicles for moving students closer to the careers that will give them the financial freedom and security they seek. As a result, college students are often more motivated to study areas that they believe will be advantageous on the socio-economic ladder. A student might value business courses over a class in Victorian poetry because she sees business coursework as a stronger vehicle for financial success and for higher placement within the social hierarchy.

Latent Functions

Education also fulfills latent functions. As you well know, much goes on in a school that has little to do with formal, programmatic education. For example, you might notice an attractive fellow student when they give a particularly interesting answer in class—catching up with them and making a date speaks to the latent function of courtship fulfilled by exposure to a peer group in the educational setting.

The educational setting introduces students to social networks that might last for years and can help people find jobs after their schooling is complete. Of course, with the increase in social media platform use such as Facebook and LinkedIn, these networks established in school environments are easier than ever to maintain. Another latent function is the ability to work with others in small groups, a skill that is transferable to a workplace and that might not be learned in a homeschool setting.

The educational system, especially as experienced on university campuses, has traditionally provided a place for students to learn about various social issues. There is ample opportunity for social and political advocacy, as well as the ability to develop tolerance to the many views represented on campus. In 2011, the Occupy Wall Street movement swept across college campuses all over the United States, leading to demonstrations in which diverse groups of students were unified with the purpose of changing the political climate of the country. Social and political advocacy can take many forms, from joining established programs on international development to joining a particular party-affiliated group to supporting non-profit clubs at your school.

Figure 1. Starting each day with the Pledge of Allegiance is one way in which students are taught patriotism. (Photo courtesy of Jeff Turner/flickr)

Functionalists recognize other ways that schools educate and enculturate students. One of the most characteristic American values students in United States schools learn is that of individualism—the valuing of the individual over the value of groups or society as a whole. In countries such as Japan and China, where the good of the group is valued over the rights of the individual, students do not learn as they do in the United States that the highest rewards go to the “best” individual in academics or athletics. One of the roles of schools in the United States is fostering self-esteem; conversely, schools in Japan focus on fostering social esteem—the honoring of the group over the individual. As such, schools in the U.S. and around the world are teaching their students about larger national ideals and fostering institutions that are conducive to the cultural imprinting of those ideas.

In the United States, schools also fill the role of preparing students for competition in life. Obviously, athletics foster a competitive ethos, but even in the classroom students compete against one another academically. Schools also aid in teaching patriotism. Students recite the Pledge of Allegiance each morning and take history classes where they learn about national heroes and the nation’s past. The practice of saying the Pledge of Allegiance has become controversial in recent years, with individuals arguing that requiring or even expecting children to pledge allegiance is unconstitutional and as such may face legal challenges to its validity. [1] [/footnote]

Another role of schools, according to functionalist theory, is that of sorting , or classifying students based on academic merit or potential. The most capable students are identified early in schools through testing and classroom achievements. Such students are placed in accelerated programs in anticipation of successful college attendance, a practice that is referred to as tracking, and which has also generated substantial opposition, both in the United States and abroad. This will be further discussed as it pertains to conflict theory, but a majority of sociologists are against tracking in schools because research has found that the positive effects of tracking do not justify the negative ones. Functionalists further contend that school, particularly in recent years, is taking over some of the functions that were traditionally undertaken by family. Society relies on schools to teach their charges about human sexuality as well as basic skills such as budgeting and filling out job applications—topics that at one time were addressed within the family.

• [footnote]Bomboy, Scott (June 2018). "The history of legal challenges to the Pledge of Allegiance". Constitution Daily. Retrieved from https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-latest-controversy-about-under-god-in-the-pledge-of-allegiance . ↵
• Theoretical Perspectives on Education. Authored by : OpenStax CNX. Located at : https://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]:Q7ShLma2@8/16-2-Theoretical-Perspectives-on-Education . License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Download for free at http://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]

Sociology of education : Background information

• Background information

• Next: Recent e-books >>
• Recent e-books
• Recent print books
• Connect to Stanford e-resources
• Related guides

• Last Updated: Aug 28, 2024 3:45 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.stanford.edu/sociology_of_ed

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Sociological Perspectives on Education

Learning objectives.

• List the major functions of education.
• Explain the problems that conflict theory sees in education.
• Describe how symbolic interactionism understands education.

The major sociological perspectives on education fall nicely into the functional, conflict, and symbolic interactionist approaches (Ballantine & Hammack, 2009). Table 16.1 “Theory Snapshot” summarizes what these approaches say.

Table 16.1 Theory Snapshot

The Functions of Education

Functional theory stresses the functions that education serves in fulfilling a society’s various needs. Perhaps the most important function of education is socialization . If children need to learn the norms, values, and skills they need to function in society, then education is a primary vehicle for such learning. Schools teach the three Rs, as we all know, but they also teach many of the society’s norms and values, this is known as the hidden curriculum . In the United States, these norms and values include respect for authority, patriotism (remember the Pledge of Allegiance?), punctuality, individualism, and competition. . Regarding these last two values, American students from an early age compete as individuals over grades and other rewards. The situation is quite the opposite in Japan, where, as we saw in Chapter 4 “Socialization” , children learn the traditional Japanese values of harmony and group belonging from their schooling (Schneider & Silverman, 2010). They learn to value their membership in their homeroom, or kumi , and are evaluated more on their kumi ’s performance than on their own individual performance. How well a Japanese child’s kumi does is more important than how well the child does as an individual.

A second function of education is social integration . For a society to work, functionalists say, people must subscribe to a common set of beliefs and values. As we saw, the development of such common views was a goal of the system of free, compulsory education that developed in the 19th century. Thousands of immigrant children in the United States today are learning English, U.S. history, and other subjects that help prepare them for the workforce and integrate them into American life. Such integration is a major goal of the English-only movement, whose advocates say that only English should be used to teach children whose native tongue is Spanish, Vietnamese, or whatever other language their parents speak at home. Critics of this movement say it slows down these children’s education and weakens their ethnic identity (Schildkraut, 2005).

A third function of education is social placement . Beginning in grade school, students are identified by teachers and other school officials either as bright and motivated or as less bright and even educationally challenged. Depending on how they are identified, children are taught at the level that is thought to suit them best. In this way they are prepared in the most appropriate way possible for their later station in life. Whether this process works as well as it should is an important issue, and we explore it further when we discuss school tracking shortly.

Social and cultural innovation is a fourth function of education. Our scientists cannot make important scientific discoveries and our artists and thinkers cannot come up with great works of art, poetry, and prose unless they have first been educated in the many subjects they need to know for their chosen path.

Figure 16.1 The Functions of Education

Schools ideally perform many important functions in modern society. These include socialization, social integration, social placement, and social and cultural innovation.

Education also involves several latent functions, functions that are by-products of going to school and receiving an education rather than a direct effect of the education itself. One of these is child care . Once a child starts kindergarten and then first grade, for several hours a day the child is taken care of for free. The establishment of peer relationships is another latent function of schooling. Most of us met many of our friends while we were in school at whatever grade level, and some of those friendships endure the rest of our lives. A final latent function of education is that it keeps millions of high school students out of the full-time labor force . This fact keeps the unemployment rate lower than it would be if they were in the labor force.

Education and Inequality

Conflict theory does not dispute most of the functions just described. However, it does give some of them a different slant and talks about various ways in which education perpetuates social inequality (Hill, Macrine, & Gabbard, 2010; Liston, 1990). One example involves the function of social placement. As most schools track their students starting in grade school, the students thought by their teachers to be bright are placed in the faster tracks (especially in reading and arithmetic), while the slower students are placed in the slower tracks; in high school, three common tracks are the college track, vocational track, and general track.

Such tracking does have its advantages; it helps ensure that bright students learn as much as their abilities allow them, and it helps ensure that slower students are not taught over their heads. But, conflict theorists say, tracking also helps perpetuate social inequality by locking students into faster and lower tracks. Worse yet, several studies show that students’ social class and race and ethnicity affect the track into which they are placed, even though their intellectual abilities and potential should be the only things that matter: white, middle-class students are more likely to be tracked “up,” while poorer students and students of color are more likely to be tracked “down.” Once they are tracked, students learn more if they are tracked up and less if they are tracked down. The latter tend to lose self-esteem and begin to think they have little academic ability and thus do worse in school because they were tracked down. In this way, tracking is thought to be good for those tracked up and bad for those tracked down. Conflict theorists thus say that tracking perpetuates social inequality based on social class and race and ethnicity (Ansalone, 2006; Oakes, 2005).

Social inequality is also perpetuated through the widespread use of standardized tests. Critics say these tests continue to be culturally biased, as they include questions whose answers are most likely to be known by white, middle-class students, whose backgrounds have afforded them various experiences that help them answer the questions. They also say that scores on standardized tests reflect students’ socioeconomic status and experiences in addition to their academic abilities. To the extent this critique is true, standardized tests perpetuate social inequality (Grodsky, Warren, & Felts, 2008).

As we will see, schools in the United States also differ mightily in their resources, learning conditions, and other aspects, all of which affect how much students can learn in them. Simply put, schools are unequal, and their very inequality helps perpetuate inequality in the larger society. Children going to the worst schools in urban areas face many more obstacles to their learning than those going to well-funded schools in suburban areas. Their lack of learning helps ensure they remain trapped in poverty and its related problems.

Conflict theorists also say that schooling teaches a hidden curriculum , by which they mean a set of values and beliefs that support the status quo, including the existing social hierarchy (Booher-Jennings, 2008) (see Chapter 4 “Socialization” ). Although no one plots this behind closed doors, our schoolchildren learn patriotic values and respect for authority from the books they read and from various classroom activities.

Symbolic Interactionism and School Behavior

Symbolic interactionist studies of education examine social interaction in the classroom, on the playground, and in other school venues. These studies help us understand what happens in the schools themselves, but they also help us understand how what occurs in school is relevant for the larger society. Some studies, for example, show how children’s playground activities reinforce gender-role socialization. Girls tend to play more cooperative games, while boys play more competitive sports (Thorne, 1993) (see Chapter 11 “Gender and Gender Inequality” ).

Another body of research shows that teachers’ views about students can affect how much the students learn, known as the Pygmalion Effect. When teachers think students are smart, they tend to spend more time with them, to call on them, and to praise them when they give the right answer. Not surprisingly these students learn more because of their teachers’ behavior. But when teachers think students are less bright, they tend to spend less time with them and act in a way that leads the students to learn less. One of the first studies to find this example of a self-fulfilling prophecy was conducted by Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson (1968). They tested a group of students at the beginning of the school year and told their teachers which students were bright and which were not. They tested the students again at the end of the school year; not surprisingly the bright students had learned more during the year than the less bright ones. But it turned out that the researchers had randomly decided which students would be designated bright and less bright. Because the “bright” students learned more during the school year without actually being brighter at the beginning, their teachers’ behavior must have been the reason. In fact, their teachers did spend more time with them and praised them more often than was true for the “less bright” students. To the extent this type of self-fulfilling prophecy occurs, it helps us understand why tracking is bad for the students tracked down.

Research guided by the symbolic interactionist perspective suggests that teachers’ expectations may influence how much their students learn. When teachers expect little of their students, their students tend to learn less.

ijiwaru jimbo – Pre-school colour pack – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Other research focuses on how teachers treat girls and boys. Several studies from the 1970s through the 1990s found that teachers call on boys more often and praise them more often (American Association of University Women Educational Foundation, 1998; Jones & Dindia, 2004). Teachers did not do this consciously, but their behavior nonetheless sent an implicit message to girls that math and science are not for girls and that they are not suited to do well in these subjects. This body of research stimulated efforts to educate teachers about the ways in which they may unwittingly send these messages and about strategies they could use to promote greater interest and achievement by girls in math and science (Battey, Kafai, Nixon, & Kao, 2007).

Key Takeaways

• According to the functional perspective, education helps socialize children and prepare them for their eventual entrance into the larger society as adults.
• The conflict perspective emphasizes that education reinforces inequality in the larger society.
• The symbolic interactionist perspective focuses on social interaction in the classroom, on school playgrounds, and at other school-related venues. Social interaction contributes to gender-role socialization, and teachers’ expectations may affect their students’ performance.

American Association of University Women Educational Foundation. (1998). Gender gaps: Where schools still fail our children . Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.

Ansalone, G. (2006). Tracking: A return to Jim Crow. Race, Gender & Class, 13 , 1–2.

Ballantine, J. H., & Hammack, F. M. (2009). The sociology of education: A systematic analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Battey, D., Kafai, Y., Nixon, A. S., & Kao, L. L. (2007). Professional development for teachers on gender equity in the sciences: Initiating the conversation. Teachers College Record, 109 (1), 221–243.

Booher-Jennings, J. (2008). Learning to label: Socialisation, gender, and the hidden curriculum of high-stakes testing. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29 , 149–160.

Grodsky, E., Warren, J. R., & Felts, E. (2008). Testing and social stratification in American education. Annual Review of Sociology, 34 (1), 385–404.

Hill, D., Macrine, S., & Gabbard, D. (Eds.). (2010). Capitalist education: Globalisation and the politics of inequality . New York, NY: Routledge; Liston, D. P. (1990). Capitalist schools: Explanation and ethics in radical studies of schooling . New York, NY: Routledge.

Jones, S. M., & Dindia, K. (2004). A meta-analystic perspective on sex equity in the classroom. Review of Educational Research, 74 , 443–471.

Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom . New York, NY: Holt.

Schildkraut, D. J. (2005). Press “one” for English: Language policy, public opinion, and American identity . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Schneider, L., & Silverman, A. (2010). Global sociology: Introducing five contemporary societies (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Thorne, B. (1993). Gender play: Girls and boys in school . New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Introduction to Sociology: Understanding and Changing the Social World Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

IResearchNet

Academic Writing Services

Sociology of education.

In the broadest perspective, education refers to all efforts to impart knowledge and shape values; hence, it has essentially the same meaning as socialization. However, when sociologists speak of education, they generally use a more specific meaning: the deliberate process, outside the family, by which societies transmit knowledge, values, and norms to prepare young people for adult roles (and, to a lesser extent, prepare adults for new roles). This process acquires institutional status when these activities make instruction the central defining purpose, are differentiated from other social realms, and involve defined roles of teacher and learner (Clark 1968). Schools exemplify this type of institutionalization.

Functionalism

Neo-marxist theory, status conflict, the interpretative tradition, schooling and life chances, socioeconomic status and achievement, the racial gap, school effects, teacher expectations, contextual effects, learning through the year, enhancing performance, macro-level effects, the reformist project.

The central insight of the sociology of education is that schools are socially embedded institutions that are crucially shaped by their social environment and crucially shape it. The field encompasses both micro- and macro-sociological concerns in diverse subfields such as stratification, economic development, socialization and the family, organizations, culture, and the sociology of knowledge. To understand modern society, it is essential to understand the role of education. Not only is education a primary agent of socialization and allocation, modern societies have developed formidable ideologies that suggest that education should have this defining impact (Meyer 1977).

Durkheim (1977) was the intellectual pioneer in this field, tracing the historical connections between the form and content of schools and larger social forces such as the rise of the bourgeoisie and the trend toward individualism. Largely because the field focuses so intensively on stratification-related issues (e.g., the impact of family background on educational attainment), the larger issues raised by Marx and Weber are readily evident in current scholarship. However, as Dreeben’s (1994) historical account indicates, the direct contribution of the discipline’s founders to the development of the sociology of education in the United States was minimal; indeed, even the foremost early American sociologists in the field did not decisively shape its development.

In The Sociology of Teaching, Waller (1932) examined teaching as an occupational role and school organization as a mechanism of social control. He emphasized the role of the school in the conflict-ridden socialization of the young as well as the interpersonal and organizational mechanisms that furthered students’ acceptance of the normative order. Although now recognized as a classic, Waller’s analysis stimulated little work for several decades.

Although less focused on education per se, Sorokin (1927) portrayed schools as a key channel of mobility with their own distinctive form of social testing. He argued that increasing opportunities for schooling would stratify the society, not level it. However, Blau and Duncan’s (1967) paradigm-setting study of status attainment (see below) did not refer to Sorokin’s analysis of education despite their appreciation of his larger concern for the significance of social mobility. Warner’s and Hollingshead’s community studies considered education integral to community social organization, especially through its connection to the stratification system, but their influence, like that of Waller and Sorokin, was more a matter of suggesting general ideas than of establishing a cumulative research tradition.

As a subfield within the sociological discipline, the sociology of education has been propelled largely by a host of practical, policy-related issues that emerged with the development of the mass educational system. Essentially, research has focused on whether education has delivered on its promise of creating more rational, culturally adapted, and productive individuals and, by extension, a “better” society. The field was particularly energized by the egalitarian concerns of the 1960s: How “fair” is the distribution of opportunity in schools and in the larger society, and how can disparities be reduced? These questions continue to animate the field.

Back to Top

Theoretical Debates

Much research, even the most policy-oriented, has been grounded, often implicitly, in more general analytic perspectives on the role of education in modern society. The two main orientations are functionalism and conflict theory, though other, less encompassing perspectives also have shaped the field significantly.

In the functionalist view, schools serve the presumed needs of a social order committed to rationality, meritocracy, and democracy. They provide individuals with the necessary cognitive skills and cultural outlook to be successful workers and citizens (Parsons 1959; Dreeben 1968) and provide society with an efficient, fair way of sorting and selecting ”talents” so that the most capable can assume the most responsible positions (Clark 1962). Complementing this sociological work is human capital theory in economics, which contends that investment in education enhances individual productivity and aggregate economic growth (Schultz 1961). The criticism in the 1980s that poor schooling had contributed significantly to America’s decline in the international economy reflects a popular version of this theoretical orientation.

However, in the 1970s, both the increasing prominence of critical political forces and the accumulated weight of research spurred a theoretical challenge. Important parts of the empirical base of functionalism were questioned: that schools taught productive skills, that mass education had ushered in a meritocratic social order, and that education had furthered social equality. A number of conflict-oriented approaches emerged.

Neo-Marxist scholars have provided the most thorough challenge to the functionalist position. For all the diversity within this conflict theory, the main point is that the organization of schools largely reflects the dictates of the corporate-capitalist economy. In the most noted formulation, Bowles and Gintis (1976) argue that education must fulfill the needs of capitalism: efficiently allocating differently socialized individuals to appropriate slots in the corporate hierarchy, transferring privilege from generation to generation, and accomplishing both while maintaining a semblance of legitimacy. Thus, the changing demands of capitalist production and the power of capitalist elites determine the nature of the educational system.

More recent neo-Marxist scholarship (Willis 1981) emphasized that schools are not only agents of social reproduction but also important sites of resistance to the capitalist order. Many neo-Marxists also have emphasized the ”relative autonomy” of the state from economic forces and, correspondingly, the partial responsiveness of schools to demands from subordinate groups (Carnoy and Levin 1985). Other scholars in this general critical tradition have turned in ”post-Marxist” directions, emphasizing inequities related to gender and race along with class, but the common, defining point remains that educational inequities reflect and perpetuate the inequities of capitalist society and that oppressed groups have an objective interest in fundamental social transformation (Aronowitz and Giroux 1985). This newer critical approach has developed with relatively little connection to mainstream approaches (i.e., positivistic, often reform-oriented research) despite some similarities in concerns (e.g., student disruptions and challenges to authority in schools) (Davies 1995).

Obviously, neo-Marxists do not share the essentially benign vision of the social order in functionalist thought, but both perspectives view the organization of schooling as ”intimately connected with the changing character of work and the larger process of industrialization in modern society” (Hurn 1993, p. 86). These competing perspectives are rooted in similar logical forms of causal argument: To explain educational organization and change, functionalists invoke the “needs” of the society, while neo-Marxists invoke the ”needs” of the capitalist order for the same purpose. Critics contend that both perspectives posit an overly tight, rational link between schools and the economy and concomitantly downplay the institutional autonomy as schools as well as the complexity of political struggles over education (Kingston 1986).

Arising out of the Weberian tradition, the status conflict approach emphasizes the attempts of various groups—primarily defined by ethnicity, race, and class—to use education as a mechanism to win or maintain privilege (Collins 1979). The evolving structure of the educational system reflects the outcomes of these struggles as groups attempt to control the system for their own benefit. With varying success, status groups use education both to build group cohesion and to restrict entry to desired positions to those certified by ”their” schools. However, as lower-status groups seek social mobility by acquiring more educational credentials, enrollments may expand beyond what is technically necessary. In this view, then, the educational system is not necessarily functional to capitalist interests or other imputed system needs.

Consistent with this view, a primary effect of schools, especially at the elite level, is to provide cultural capital, of which educational credentials are the main markers (Bourdieu and Passeron 1977). This form of capital refers to the personal style, social outlooks and values, and aesthetic tastes that make a person suitable for socially valued positions. (The point of comparison is human capital, an individual’s productive, technical skills.) In this perspective, education is rewarded because occupational gatekeepers value particular forms of cultural capital, and thus education is a key mechanism of class and status reproduction.

Sociologists in the interpretative tradition view schools as places where meaning is socially constructed through everyday interactions. This tradition incorporates the general orientations of phenomenology, symbolic interactionism, and ethnomethodology. Accordingly, micro-level concerns predominate—for example, what do teachers expect their students to learn, and how do those expectations condition their conduct in class?—and research tends to rely on qualitative techniques. This tradition is unified by a general sense of what kinds of questions to ask (and how to ask them) rather than a set of related theoretical propositions or a body of accumulated findings.

Empirical Studies

The highly selective review of empirical studies that follows focuses on the two key questions in contemporary American sociology of education: (1) How is education involved in the distribution of life chances? (2) How are family status and school characteristics connected to educational attainment and/or academic achievement? With few exceptions, analyses of education in other countries are not considered. The field is dominated by American research, and American sociologists have engaged in relatively little comparative research. Baker (1994) speculates that this lack of a comparative research tradition in the United States reflects both a belief in American ”exceptionalism” (for instance, an extreme emphasis on mass access) and a strong focus on micro-level issues that do not necessarily call for comparative research designs.

Throughout the twentieth century in all industrial countries, there has been a dramatic upgrading in the occupational structure and a dramatic expansion in educational systems. Ever more jobs have come to require academic qualifications, a process that usually is interpreted as being driven by the rationalism and universalism of modernization. In this functionalist perspective, academic skills are presumed to be technically required and meritocratically rewarded, transforming the stratification system so that individual achievements rather than ascriptive characteristics determine life chances.

This interpretation has been subject to empirical test at two levels: (1) the individual level—to what extent, absolutely and relatively, does education affect economic attainment? and (2) the macro level—to what extent have educational expansion and the increasing significance of schools for occupational attainment increased overall equality of opportunity?

At the first level, as part of the general analysis of status attainment, researchers have concentrated on measuring the connection between individuals’ schooling and their economic position. Building on Blau and Duncan’s (1967) work, researchers have repeatedly documented in multivariate models that education (measured in years of schooling and degree completion) has by far the largest independent impact on adult attainment (Featherman and Hauser 1978; Jencks et al. 1979). By comparison, the net direct effects of family status (usually measured in terms of parental education and occupation) are modest. Indeed, among the college-educated in recent years, higher family status confers no extra advantage at all (Hout 1988).

Earlier in life, however, family status is substantially related to educational attainment. The total effect (direct and indirect) of family status on occupational attainment is therefore substantial, though its impact is mediated very largely through educational attainment. In effect, then, education plays a double-sided role in the stratification process. Education is the great equalizer: It confers largely similar benefits to all regardless of family origins. However, it is also the great reproducer: Higher-status families transmit their position across generations largely through the educational attainment of their children.

The strong connection between schooling and occupational attainment is open to diverse interpretations. Most prominently, human capital theory suggests that education enhances productivity, and because people are paid in accordance with their marginal productivity, the well educated enjoy greater prospects. In favor of this interpretation is the fact that schooling is demonstrably linked to the enhancement of academic competencies (Fischer et al. 1996) and that basic academic skills are substantially correlated with job performance in a wide variety of settings (Hunter 1986).

By contrast, credentials theory portrays the educational institution as a sorting device in which individuals are slotted to particular positions in the occupational hierarchy on the basis of academic credentials, often with little regard for their individual productive capacities. The fact that possessing specific credentials (especially a college degree) has positive career effects, net of both years of schooling and measured academic ability, provides indirect support for this view. That is, there appears to be a “sheepskin effect,” so that employers value the degree per se, although people with degrees may have unmeasured productive capacities or dispositions that account for their success ( Jencks et al. 1979). Moreover, the credentialist argument is strengthened by the fact that in some elite segments of the labor market, employers primarily recruit graduates of certain prestigious programs and make little effort to discern differences in the academic-based skills of those included in the restricted applicant pool (Kingston and Clawson 1990).

Both views seem to have some merit; indeed, they may be partially complementary. Employers may generally use educational attainment as a low-cost, rough proxy for productive skill, and for certain positions they may favor holders of particular degrees because of their presumed cultural dispositions and the prestige that their presence lends the organization. The relative explanatory power of the human capital and credentialist perspectives may vary across segments of the labor market.

At the macro level, it might be expected that the great expansion of access to education has reduced the impact of family origins on educational attainment, increasing equality of opportunity, but that has proved to be more the exception than the rule. A rigorous thirteen-country comparative study identified two patterns: greater equalization among socioeconomic strata in the Netherlands and Sweden and virtual stability in the rest, including the United States (Shavit and Blossfeld 1993), where the strata have largely maintained their relative positions as average attainment has increased. Thus, the impact of educational policies designed to promote equality appears minimal; even in Sweden and the Netherlands, the trend toward equalization emerged before reforms were introduced.

Given the centrality of educational attainment in the general attainment process, researchers have focused on the substantial relationship between socioeconomic status and educational attainment. (This relationship appears to be stronger in highly developed societies than in developing societies.) The best predictor of educational attainment is academic achievement (i.e., higher grades and test scores); the school system consistently rewards academic performance and in that sense is meritocratic. Regardless of academic performance, children from socially advantaged families have somewhat disproportionate success in moving through the educational system, but the main reason higher-status students have this success is that they achieve better in schools.

The question here is, Why do higher-status students achieve better in schools? Clearly, there is no simple answer. Research has pointed to the following family-related factors, among others:

• Material resources. Richer families can purchase the materials and experiences that foster intellectual development.
• Parental expectations and/or encouragement. Well-educated parents more actively stress the importance of academic achievement, and their own success through schooling encourages their children to accept that value.
• Direct parental involvement in home learning activities. Higher-status parents are more willing and able to teach academic lessons at home and help with homework.
• Verbal and analytic stimulation. In higher-status families, interactions between parents and children are more likely to promote verbal sophistication and reasoning.
• Family structure and parenting style. The presence of two parents and parenting styles involving warm interactions favor academic achievement, and both factors are related to socioeconomic status (SES).
• Parental involvement in schools. Higher-status parents are better able to interact effectively with teachers and administrators to secure favorable treatment and understand expectations.
• Cultural “fit” with schools. The cultural styles of higher-status students are more compatible with the prevailing norms and values in schools.
• Social capital. Initially Coleman’s (1988) idea, this refers to the extent and nature of the connections between parents and children as well as the connections with other family and community members. By providing informational, emotional, and other resources, these connections facilitate adaptions to the demands of schools.
• Social context. Higher-status families are likely to live in communities where other families promote achievement and their children’s peers are committed to academic achievement.
• Genetic advantage. Early IQ is related to SES, and intelligence is related to academic performance.

Individually, none of these factors seems to account for a large part of the overall relationship between SES and academic achievement, nor is the relative significance of these factors clear, yet the very length of the list suggests the complexity of the issue. Higher-status students are not all similarly advantaged by each of these factors, and lower-status students are not all similarly disadvantaged by each one. The substantial aggregate relationship between SES and achievement undoubtedly reflects complex interactions among the many home-related contributing causes. As is more thoroughly discussed below, the mediating impact of school resources and practices is much less consequential.

The black-white disparity in academic performance remains large despite some notable reductions in recent years, and it is economically significant. A number of researchers have shown that for younger cohorts, the racial disparity in earnings is accounted for very largely by differences in basic academic skills as measured by scores on tests such as Armed Forces Qualifications Test (Farkas 1996).

Why this gap persists is unclear, partly because until recently, sociologists and other social scientists were wary of addressing such a politically explosive issue. Most relevant for the discussion here is the fact this gap cannot be explained by blacks’ lesser school resources (see “School Effects,” below). Largely drawing on the work of scholars in related fields, the sociological consensus appears to be that the racial disparity does not reflect a group-based difference in genetic potential (Jencks and Phillips 1998). (At the individual level, there is undoubtedly some genetic component to IQ among people of all races.) Moreover, this gap cannot be attributed largely to racial differences in economic advantage: Socioeconomic status explains only about a third of it. However, a broader index of family environment, including parental practices, may account for up to two- thirds of the gap (Phillips et al. 1998). A complete explanation probably will involve many of the factors previously noted in the discussion of the relation between SES and achievement but also include the distinctive cultural barriers that ”involuntary minorities” face in many societies (Ogbu 1978) as well as subtle interactional processes within schools.

Racial disparities in educational attainment have declined dramatically. High school graduation rates are now virtually the same, and the remaining disparity in college attendance reflects blacks’ lower economic resources, not a distinctive racial barrier.

The governmental report Equality of Educational Opportunity (Coleman et al. 1966) strongly challenged conventional wisdom about the connections among economic status, schools, and achievement. In doing so, it fundamentally shaped the agenda for further research in this area.

Attempting to identify the characteristics of schools that improve learning, the so-called Cole-man Report documented two key points. First, there is a weak relationship between social status and school quality as measured by indicators such as expenditure per pupil, teachers’ experience, and class size despite considerable racial segregation. Second, these measures of school quality have very little overall effect on school achievement (scores on standardized tests) independent of students’ family background. The Coleman Report also showed, however, that school effects were notably larger for black and Hispanic students than they were for whites and Asians. Among the school effects, the racial composition of schools was the most critical: Blacks did somewhat better in integrated schools.

Later research largely validated the main conclusions of the Coleman Report, but also modified them, often by considering more subtle aspects of school quality. For instance, some school resources, including expenditures, seem to enhance achievement, but the predominance of home factors on achievement remains undisputed. In regard to another between-schools effect, Coleman argued for the educational superiority of Catholic schools, an advantage he attributed to their communal caring spirit and high academic expectations for all students. The Coleman Report did not consider such cultural matters or specific educational practices. Much of the post-Coleman Report research focused on within-school effects because gross between-school effects appeared to be relatively minor.

Ability grouping in elementary schools and tracking in high schools have attracted attention, largely as a source of inequalities of academic performance. The premise of these practices is that students differ substantially in academic ability and will learn more if taught with students of similar ability. Although many different practices are grouped under the term ”tracking,” students in the ”top” groups generally receive a more demanding education, with higher expectations, more sophisticated content, and a quicker pace, and are disproportionately from advantaged families. The obvious but not fully settled issue is whether schools ”discriminate” in favor of the socially advantaged in making placements. At the high school level, controlling for measures of prior achievement (themselves affected by family factors), higher SES seems to enhance one’s chances modestly, though achievement factors are predominant in placement. Blacks are somewhat favored in the process if one controls for prior achievement. At the elementary school level, research is less consistent, though one study indicates that neither test scores nor family background predicts early reading group placement (Pallas et al. 1994).

Another important but not fully settled issue is whether students in certain ability groups or tracks learn more because of their placement. Gamoran (1992) shows that the effects of tracking are conditioned substantially by the characteristics of the tracking system (for example, how much mobility between tracks is allowed) and subject matter. However, by way of gross summary, higher track placement per se generally seems to have a modestly beneficial impact on achievement and also seems to increase students’ educational aspirations and self-esteem. However, to exemplify the important exceptions to this generalization, it appears that within-class grouping for elementary school mathematics may help both low and high groups.

It is commonly supposed that differences in teachers’ expectations explain at least some of the racial and socioeconomic disparities in academic achievement. The claim is that a self-fulfilling prophecy is at work: Teachers expect less from socially disadvantaged students and treat them accordingly, and therefore these students perform less well in school. Rosenthal and Jacobson’s (1968) small-scale experimental study provided the initial impetus for this argument, but follow-up studies in real classrooms suggest that teachers’ expectations have little or no effects on later performance.

If the standard for fairness is race neutrality in light of past academic performance, there is little evidence of racial bias in teachers’ expectations, but some limited evidence suggests that teachers’ beliefs are more consequential for blacks than for whites (Ferguson 1998). More generally, research has not established that socially discriminatory practices in schools significantly explain the link between family and/or racial status and achievement.

Not only do students come to school with different backgrounds that affect learning, schools provide students with different social environments that are importantly shaped by the economic and racial composition of the student body. Because peers are so influential in children’s and adolescents’ lives, the obvious question is whether the social composition of a school affects individual learning beyond the effects attributable to an individual’s status characteristics. This issue has had practical significance in light of ongoing public debates about the impact of racial desegregation initiatives.

Evidence about the impact of social context on learning is mixed, but in any case the impact is not large. To the extent that the SES of a student body is consequential, this appears to result from the connection between SES and a positive academic climate in a school. Greater racial integration generally seems to promote black student achievement slightly, but the benefits are more pronounced for black students when they actually have classroom contact with white students rather than just attending a formerly integrated school.

More recent research suggests an important cautionary note about whether integration “works.” Entwistle and Alexander (1992), for example, show that on a yearlong basis, in the early grades black students in integrated schools had better reading comprehension than did black students in segregated schools. However, the apparent advantage of integrated schools totally reflects the fact that black students at integrated schools improved more during the summer than did black students at segregated schools. During the school year black students did slightly better in segregated schools. This analysis exemplifies the increasing recognition that a simple conclusion about integration— works versus does not work—is inadequate.

As should be evident, a major issue in the sociology of education is separating the effects of the home from the effects of the school. The perplexing finding is that racial and class disparities in achievement in the early grades become substantially greater as students progress through school. Critics have seized on this finding to indict schools for discriminatory practices that exacerbate social inequality.

However, so-called summer learning research suggests a different interpretation (Alexander and Entwistle 1995; Gamoran 1995). Examining the same students’ test scores at the beginning and ending of each of several school years, researchers have shown that (1) despite initial disparities, advantaged and disadvantaged groups have roughly similar gains in achievement during the school year but that (2) advantaged students continue to improve during the summer while disadvantaged students stagnate or decline. As the effects of this process accumulate over the years, initial disparities become ever larger. The important implication is that schools neither reduce nor add to the inequalities that are rooted in homes. Schools in effect passively reproduce existing inequalities.

Although crude measures of school resources (e.g., teacher certification levels) appear at most to be weakly related to school achievement, a burgeoning and increasingly sophisticated line of research finds that effective schools can be identified. These schools are marked by strong leadership committed to academically focused goals and order, high academic demands, and frequent practice of academic skills. This research also directs attention to the benefits of an overall communal culture and classroom interactions that stress cooperative efforts between students and teachers (Lee and Croninger 1994). What appears critical is how resources are organizationally applied.

This article has focused on the experiences of individuals: how education affects life chances and how personal characteristics and school experiences affect learning. The unit of analysis, in other words, is the individual. Research in the field much less commonly takes the society as the unit of analysis: How do societal features shape the nature of the educational system? How do the features of this system affect other societal arrangements? An important example of macroanalysis is the generally limited impact of increasing educational access on equality of opportunity (see “Schooling and Life Chances,” above). Perhaps the most studied macro-level topic is the relationship between educational expansion and economic growth.

If the individual economic benefits of education are clear, the impact of educational expansion on economic growth is less certain. The orthodox view in economics is that educational expansion promotes growth. This view follows from human capital theory: People with more schooling get higher pay because they are more productive, and if more people get more schooling, they will produce more and get paid more, with the aggregate effect being economic growth. Many sociologists are at least partially skeptical of this idea. Undoubtedly, more educated workers get paid more, but the positive (private) rate of return they enjoy reflects greater productivity only if it is assumed that the labor market is perfectly competitive and in equilibrium. This assumption is at least partly problematic given socially discriminatory employment practices, internal labor markets with seniority rules and restricted job mobility, professional and union restrictions of labor supply, and public sector employment with politically determined pay structures.

Allocation theory—which also is called the credentialing perspective—offers an alternative explanation of the link between education and economic rewards. In brief, employers assume that the more educated, as a group, are relatively desirable people to hire (for reasons that may or may not reflect their individual productive capacities); and in turn, how people are ranked in the educational hierarchy becomes linked to how they are ranked in the hierarchy of the existing job structure. Educational expansion, then, does not necessarily promote economic growth; it only affects who gets which of the already existing jobs. To the extent that credentialing processes are operative, it is impossible to infer aggregate effects on growth from individual-level data on income.

Given the ambiguous implications of individual income data, the best way to examine the issue is through aggregate, national-level studies of how education affects economic growth. The accumulated weight of this research undercuts claims about the large universal benefits of more education of all types. Benavot (1992), for example, establishes the following for a large sample of developed and poor countries in the period 19131985: Throughout the period, the expansion of primary education promoted growth; the expansion of secondary education had more modest impact, and only during times of worldwide prosperity; and tertiary education tended to retard growth at all times. In the United States, moreover, tertiary enrollments have never stimulated growth (Walters and Rubinson, 1983).

However, even if more education is not a universal economic ”fix,” in certain circumstances particular types of education may stimulate growth in specific sectors. Reviewing single-country times series studies that use an aggregate production function model, Rubinson and Fuller (1992) conclude that education had the greatest beneficial impact when it created the kinds of skills that were suited to an economy’s sectoral mix and technological demands. However, a good fit between the educational system and the economy is by no means certain because educational expansion and the actual educational content of schools are so often driven by political processes, not technological demands.

Even if the actual economic impact of education is often less than is commonly supposed, the widespread belief in the general modernizing benefits of education is central to an ideology that permeates the entire world. Indeed, in Meyer’s institutionalist perspective (Meyer and Hannan 1979; Meyer 1977), the quest to appear modern has induced later-developing societies to mimic the educational practices of the early modernizers so that many school structures, rituals, and formal curricular contents are remarkably similar throughout the world. In turn, this institutionalized similarity means that on a global basis, certain types of knowledge become defined as relatively significant, the elite and mass positions become defined and legitimated by educational certification, and assumptions about a national culture rest on the existence of mass education. Nevertheless, if education is associated at the individual level with certain democratic values, educational expansion per se does not appear to contribute to the emergence of democratic regimes or state power.

Policy debates about education have often been contentious, fueled by larger ideological and political struggles. In conservative times, schools have been pressed to emphasize discipline and social and/or intellectual sorting; conversely, in more liberal times, issues of equality and inclusion have come to the fore. The apparent result is cyclical, pendulum-like swings in policy between, say, an emphasis on common core requirements and highly differentiated curricula.

While differences at the rhetorical level have sometimes been sharp, actual changes in practice in much of the twentieth century have been relatively minor. This reflects the institutionalization of the school, meaning that there is a widespread collective sense of what a ”real” school is like (Tyack and Cuban 1995). This institutionalization rests on popular legitimization and the recurrent practices of school administrators and teachers. Concrete practices such as the division of knowledge into particular subject areas, the spatial organization of classrooms, and the separation of students into age-based grades are all part of the ”real” school. Educational practices that depart from this pattern have had limited acceptance, for example, open classrooms in the 1970s. The lesson for current reformers is that policies that modify institutionalized practices, not fundamentally challenge them, are more likely to be successful and that the political support of in-the-school educators is critical for success.

Indeed, much policy-oriented research has had a mildly reformist bent, primarily concerned with making existing schools “work better.” That has largely — and narrowly—meant producing students with higher scores on standardized tests in the basic academic subject areas. Critics have questioned both the validity of these tests and the desirability of evaluating school “success” in these limited terms alone. Proponents contend that scores on these tests have considerable predictive validity for later school and occupational performance and that their standardized results permit rigorous comparisons across groups and school settings.

The welter of policy-related studies is impossible to summarize here (and the distinction between sociological research and educational research is hardly sharp), but two general types of contributions from sociologists stand out. The first is essentially a debunking contribution: Sociologists have shown what does not work despite fervent beliefs to the contrary. The previously discussed Coleman Report is the most prominent example, undercutting the liberal faith of the 1960s that differences in school resources substantially account for racial and socioeconomic differences in academic achievement.

The second contribution is essentially methodological, alerting policymakers to the fact that many apparent school effects may largely or even totally reflect selection biases. That is, if groups of students are subject to different educational practices, are any differences in their performance attributable to the educational practices per se, or are different sorts of students subject to different practices, thus accounting for the association between practice and performance? In recent years, controversies about the efficacy of private and Catholic schools, related to larger debates about school choice plans, have centrally involved the issue of selection bias. In the most sophisticated study, Bryk et al. (1993) demonstrate net positive effects of Catholic schools on academic achievement and show that the gap in achievement between white and minority students is reduced in Catholic schools.

Even with the most sophisticated multilevel, multivariate statistical models, however, sociologists cannot make firm causal claims by analyzing survey data. However, by ruling out many potential sources of spuriousness, these analyses can suggest interventions that are likely to have a positive effect. True experiments, which involve the actual manipulation of the treatment and/or practice, are rare. In a state-sponsored experiment in Tennessee, starting in kindergarten, students were randomly assigned to varyingly sized classes (with and without a teacher’s aide). The results showed that students, especially minority students, benefited academically from small classes (thirteen to seventeen students) and that the benefits persisted even when the students later moved to larger classes (Finn and Achilles 1990). Prior nonexperimental analyses had shown, across the range of class size in existing schools, that class size had very little or no effect.

Now that it is accepted that schools can make a difference in learning despite the great significance of family-based factors, the research agenda probably will focus on specifying the conditions in which particular school practices are most effective. This will involve analyzing inside-school practices as well as the links between families and schools and between schools and the workplace.

References:

• Alexander, Karl, and Doris Entwistle (1995) ‘‘Schools and Children at Risk.’’ In Allan Booth and Judith Dunn, eds., Family-School Links: How Do They Affect Educational Outcomes? Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
• Aronowitz, Stanley, and Henry Giroux (1985) Education under Siege: The Conservative, Liberal and Radical Debate over Schooling. South Hadley, Mass.: Bergin and Garvey.
• Baker, David (1994) ‘‘In Comparative Isolation: Why Comparative Research Has So Little Influence on American Sociology of Education.’’ Research in Sociology of Education and Socialization 10:53–70.
• Benavot, Aaron (1992) ‘‘Educational Expansion and Economic Growth in the Modern World, 1913–1985.’’ In Bruce Fuller and Richard Rubinson, eds., The Political Construction of Education. New York: Praeger.
• Blau, Peter, and Otis D. Duncan (1967) The American Occupational Structure. New York: Wiley.
• Bourdieu, Pierre, and Jean-Claude Passeron (1977) Reproduction in Society, Culture, and Education. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.
• Bowles, Samuel, and Herbert Gintis (1976) Schooling in Capitalist America. New York: Basic Books.
• Bryk, Anthony, Valerie Lee, and Peter Holland (1993) Catholic Schools and the Common Good. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
• Carnoy, Martin, and Henry Levin (1985) Schooling and Work in the Democratic State. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
• Clark, Burton (1962) Educating the Expert Society. San Francisco: Chandler.
• Clark, Burton (1968) ‘‘The Study of Educational Systems.’’ In David L. Sills, ed., International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. New York: Macmillan and Free Press.
• Coleman, James (1988) ‘‘Social Capital and the Creation of Human Capital.’’ American Journal of Sociology 94(Supplement):S95–S120.
• Coleman, James, Ernst Campbell, Carol Hobson, James McPartland, Alexander Mood, Frederick Weinfeld, and Robert York (1966) Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
• Collins, Randall (1979) The Credential Society. New York: Academic Press.
• Davies, Scott (1995) ‘‘Leaps of Faith: Shifting Currents in Critical Sociology of Education.’’ American Journal of Sociology 100(6):1448–1478.
• Dreeben, Robert (1968) On What Is Learned in School. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
• Dreeben, Robert (1994) ‘‘The Sociology of Education: Its Development in the United States.’’ Research in Sociology of Education and Socialization 10:7–52.
• Durkheim, Émile (1977) The Evolution of Educational Thought, trans. Peter Collins. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
• Entwisle, Doris, and Karl Alexander (1992) ‘‘Summer Setback: Race, Poverty, School Composition, and Mathematics Achievement in the First Two Years of School.’’ American Sociological Review 59:446–460.
• Farkas, George (1996) Human Capital or Cultural Capital? New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
• Featherman, David, and Robert Hauser (1978) Opportunity and Change. New York: Academic Press.
• Ferguson, Ronald (1998) ‘‘Teachers’ Perceptions and Expectations and the Black-White Test Score Gap.’’ In Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips, eds., The Black-White Test Score Gap. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
• Finn, Jeremy and Charles Achilles (1990) ‘‘Answers and Questions about Class Size: A Statewide Experiment.’’ American Educational Research Journal 27:557–577.
• Fischer, Claude, Michael Hout, Martin Sanchez Jankowski, Samuel Lucas, Ann Swidler, and Kim Voss (1996) Inequality by Design: Cracking the Bell Curve Myth. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
• Gamoran, Adam (1992) ‘‘The Variable Effects of High School Tracking.’’ American Sociological Review 57:812–828.
• Gamoran, Adam 1995 ‘‘Effects of Schooling on Children and Families.’’ In Allan Booth and Judith Dunn, eds., Family-School Links: How Do They Affect Educational Outcomes. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
• Hout, Michael (1998) ‘‘More Universalism, Less Structural Mobility: The American Occupational Structure in the 1980s.’’ American Journal of Sociology 93:1358–1400.
• Hunter, John (1986) ‘‘Cognitive Ability, Cognitive Aptitudes, Job Knowledge, and Job Performance.’’ Journal of Vocational Behavior 29(3):340–362.
• Hurn, Christopher (1993) The Limits and Possibilities of Schooling, 3rd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
• Jencks, Christopher, and Meredith Phillips, eds. (1998) The Black-White Test Score Gap. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
• Jencks, Christopher et al. (1979) Who Gets Ahead? The Determinants of Economic Success in America. New York: Basic Books.
• Kingston, Paul (1986) ‘‘Theory at Risk: Accounting for the Excellence Movement.’’ Sociological Forum 1:632–656.
• Kingston, Paul and James Clawson (1990) ‘‘Getting on the Fast Track: Recruitment at an Elite Business School.’’ In Paul Kingston and Lionel Lewis, eds., The High Status Track: Studies of Elite Schools and Stratification. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press.
• Lee, Valerie, and Robert Croninger (1994) ‘‘The Relative Importance of Home and School for Middle-Grade Students.’’ American Journal of Education 102:286–329.
• Meyer, John (1977) ‘‘The Effects of Education as an Institution.’’ American Journal of Sociology 83:55–77.
• Meyer, John, and Michael Hannan, eds. (1979) National and Political Change, 1950–1970. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Ogbu, John (1978) Minority Education and Caste: The American System in Cross-Cultural Perspective. New York: Academic Press.
• Pallas, Aaron, Doris Entwisle, Karl Alexander, and M. Francis Stluka (1994) ‘‘Ability Group Effects: Instructional, Social or Institutional?’’ Sociology of Education 67:27–46.
• Parsons, Talcott (1959) ‘‘The School Class as a Social System.’’ Harvard Educational Review 29:297–308.
• Phillips, Meredith, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, Greg Duncan, Pamela Klebanov, and Jonathan Crane (1998) ‘‘Family Background, Parenting Practices, and the Black-White Test Score Gap.’’ In Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips, eds., The Black-White Test Score Gap. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
• Rosenthal, Robert, and Lenore Jacobson (1968) Pygmalion in the Classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
• Rubinson, Richard, and Bruce Fuller (1992) ‘‘Specifying the Effects of Education on National Economic Growth’’ In B. Fuller and R. Rubinson, eds., The Political Construction of Education. New York: Praeger.
• Schultz, Theodore (1961) ‘‘Investment in Human Capital.’’ American Economic Review 51:1–17.
• Shavit, Yossi and Hans-Peter Blossfield, eds., (1993) Persistent Inequality: Changing Educational Attainment in Thirteen Countries. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
• Sorokin, Pitirim (1927) Social Mobility. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.
• Tyack, David, and Larry Cuban (1995) Tinkering Toward Utopia: A Century of Public School Reform. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
• Waller, Willard (1932) The Sociology of Teaching. New York: Wiley.
• Walters, Pamela, and Richard Rubinson (1983) ‘‘Educational Expansion and Economic Output in the United States.’’ American Sociological Review 48:480–493.
• Willis, Paul (1981) Learning to Labor. New York: Columbia University Press.

The ‘new sociology of education’, then and now: looking back to the 1970s and ahead to today

• Point and counterpoint
• Open access
• Published: 03 October 2023
• Volume 43 , pages 183–186, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Julie McLeod   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4083-8700 1  

1426 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

It is 50 years since the work characterized as the ‘new sociology of education’ gained prominence. It constituted a body of writing and self-consciously new ways of theorizing the relationship between schooling, knowledge, power, ideology and inequality. While grounded in specific intellectual histories and locations, and closely aligned with sociological traditions emanating from the UK and north-western Europe, it became influential across many parts of the world. It spawned a body of work that provoked debates, disputes and new lines of inquiry, many of which continue to reverberate across sociological studies of education today. The essays in this Point and Counterpoint revisit these well-known ideas and discussions. exploring diverse points of connection and contrast, as well as pointing to some new directions for sociology of education today.

In broad terms, the 1970s’ new sociology of education was interested in how education, and particularly schooling, far from ameliorating social divisions, worked to reproduce existing social inequalities. Studies were more likely to be qualitative (in contrast to the previous dominance of quantitative studies) and draw from interpretive and critical traditions, often infused with a radical and disruptive knowledge politics: the language of reproduction and resistance, of disadvantage and democratic, permeated the sociological air. Topics of interest included educational experiences and processes, micro and informal practices, such as the ‘hidden curriculum’, and the relationship of schooling to popular culture, to class and to work and life beyond the classroom walls.

A key focus was the construction, organization and differential valuation of school knowledge—including advocacy for organic, local and participatory curriculum, critiques of the structure of curriculum and its class-based assumptions and effects, and the relationship between knowledge, power and schooling. Signature texts commonly associated with this period include M. F. D. Young ( 1971 ) Knowledge and Control: New Directions for the Sociology of Education ; Bowles and Gintis ( 1976 ) Schooling in Capitalist America ; Bourdieu and Passeron ( 1977 ) Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture ; Apple ( 1979 ) Ideology and Curriculum , Bernstein ( 1975 ) Class Codes and Control ; David ( 1980 ) The State, the Family and Education ; and Dale et al. ( 1976 ) Schooling and Capitalism: A Sociological Reader .

One of the leading figures in this work, Michael F. D. Young, succinctly described an epistemological position that was shared across a broad range of scholarship at this time; that is, a shift to turn the seemingly taken-for-granted aspects of education into ‘objects of inquiry’. This involved, for example, taking ‘what counts as educational knowledge, and how it is made available’ as problematic, as a question to be examined, and for these questions and forms of knowledge to ‘become objects of enquiry’ (Young, 1971 , p. 2). The orientation to interrogate and destabilize familiar questions and issues—to undo the social—has many forebears, heirs and distant relatives, from C. Wright Mills, to Foucault, to multiple feminist theorists, among many others. While it would thus be erroneous to see the new sociology of education as the primary instigator of this way of approaching and conducting sociological research, it is nevertheless the case that it had a significant influence on educational research and specifically on studies of school knowledge and curriculum. A major focus of the sociology of education became ‘an enquiry into the social organization of knowledge in educational institutions’ (Young, 1971 , p. 3): the imperative was ‘to make’, not ‘to take’, educational problems.

Such propositions may now seem quite familiar today, arguably operating at the level of truisms or articles of faith, alongside the critiques that subsequently arose about the silences, exclusions and overstatements of this large body of work. Indeed, this work generated a large volume of reflection over the following decades, with multiple assessments of what it was about, what it amounted to and what it failed to address (e.g. Acker, 1981 ; Arnot, 1982 ; Bates, 1980 ; Karabel & Halsey, 1976 ). These waves of intense critical engagement and repudiation not only exposed the new sociology of education’s blind-spots and particular pre-occupations, but they were also intellectually generative, sparking new work in opposition. This was particularly so at the time in relation to feminism and gender (Arnot, 1982 ; David, 1980 ; McRobbie, 1978 ). Other silences and erasures, such as those regarding race and colonialism, were called out later. Yet, somewhat paradoxically, this intensity also helped to cement the new sociology of education as a ‘thing’, a key moment or event in the periodization of histories of educational ideas, with battered copies of M. F. D. Young’s edited volume Knowledge and Control often standing in as an era-defining object.

These and other issues are taken up in the essays that follow. However, before running headlong into the cataloguing of faults and shortcomings, this Point and Counterpoint invites us to pause and to assess this body of sociological work with a slightly different lens and set of concerns. The essays presented here were developed in response to a forum on the ‘new sociology of education’ held at the 2022 conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education. Participants in this forum were invited because of their varied intellectual—and generational—positioning and engagement with theories, authors or projects directly or indirectly in dialogue with ideas linked to the new sociology of education. Footnote 1 Presenters were asked to revisit and historicize the aims and concerns of the new sociology of education, and to give their take on the legacies of this body of work. This could be in terms of their own intellectual formation, research agendas or disputes, adaptations and challenges to this tradition as well as any reflections on the ongoing effects of this oeuvre on the field of sociological research in education, with attention to what might be potential ‘new directions for sociology of education’ today. Specifically, the aims of the forum were to:

reflect on what the new sociology of education of the 1970s–1980s did and did not notice—historicizing its claims and concerns;

consider what its legacies are today, including what is and is not remembered; and

ask what might, does or should constitute the pressing questions, concerns and concepts for a ‘new’ sociology of education for today.

Panellists and audience members responded generously and thoughtfully to these questions, as is evident in the following essays. Responding directly to the invitation to historicize this work, Bob Lingard’s essay zooms in on the context and concerns of the canonical text Knowledge and Control , locating it against dominant sociological trends at the time of its publication and subsequent critiques about what (and who) the expansive claims for a new sociology of education did not consider. He notes debates then and since, including Young’s (e.g. 1998 ; 2005 ) own rethinking of his earlier position and his recasting of the central problematic for sociology of education as not so much one of knowledge and control but of powerful knowledge. Traversing big currents in sociological theorizing, and recognizing the impact and challenge brought to bear by feminist and decolonizing agendas, Lingard also looks ahead to current and emerging lines of sociological inquiry, such as research on the biosocial and on AI and education. Parlo Singh and Henry Kwok turn to consider the contributions of the prominent British sociologist of education Basil Bernstein to the new sociology of education; this is framed as a kind of dialogue between the work of Bernstein and of M. F. D. Young, in reference to their respective (and changing) readings of Durkheim’s writings on education. Singh and Kwok trace the different influences on Bernstein’s thinking about knowledge and curriculum, notably his engagement with Foucault’s writing and his shift to understanding, in their words, ‘the school curriculum as composed of a collection of scientific discourses’. This allowed Bernstein to conceptualize the ‘dynamic nature’ of curriculum and informed his analysis of the structuring of scientific/specialized knowledge, across both intellectual fields and everyday contexts. Reflecting on their own extended engagement with the work of Bernstein, Singh and Kwok consider debates about situated knowledges and objectivity (looking particularly at Indigenous and feminist scholarship) and link these to the knowledge and post-truth debates that emerged sharply in response to COVID measures and, in doing so, call out future directions for curriculum studies.

A related fresh line of thinking is mapped out by Joel Windle who focusses more on the ideas of another iconic figure, Pierre Bourdieu, and on the analytic process of recontexualization. Windle calls for a ‘rescaling’ of the new sociology of education as one way to understand its contributions and limitations, and to ‘draw connections to alternative scales upon which inequalities may be identified’. In some respects, these arguments pick up the above concerns with ‘situated knowledges’ but, for Windle, this is about situating the intellectual agendas and problems of inequality (which were mainly construed in terms of class) addressed by the new sociology of education in a ‘distinctive spatio-temporal nexus’—predominantly, that of north-western Europe in the post war decades. As Windle illustrates, remarkably, this excluded attention to many other, perhaps less visible yet violent forms of inequality, such as anti-colonial struggles. In acknowledging the need to contextualize the conditions of knowledge production shaping the new sociology of education, he further argues for more careful critical attention to how insights from this work travel, land, and are transformed in other spatio-temporal settings. The final essay from Jessica Gerrard and Helen Proctor returns our focus to the contemporaneous reception of the then-new sociological ideas. They attend to the parallel rise of the social science curriculum in 1970s Australia, canvassing conservative responses to these curriculum developments. In doing so, they draw connections between debates about sociological knowledge and the reach of social scientific sensibilities into the school curriculum—a movement that was seen by some to displace the authority of foundational knowledges, such as history. For conservative critics, this signalled much more, including the worrying rise of educational and social progressivism and a feared concurrent retreat from meritocratic principles and educational standards. Highlighting the work of the Australian education historian and commentator Alan Barcan, they tease out some of the complexities of conservative thought during this period. In doing so, they show the value of exploring the intersections and tensions between and across the different domains (e.g. university, schools) in which questions of knowledge formation, curriculum and new sociological thinking are enacted and (re)contextualized.

Together, these essays underline the importance of the new sociology of education as part of the intellectual history of the field of educational research. But, as important, they point to some of the ways which these ideas seeped beyond academia and arcane debates, intersecting with (shaping and being shaped by) a vast range of innovations and experiments in educational practices and curriculum during this same period. In this sense, attending to the new sociology of education also points to directions for a practical and curricular history, for histories of practice and knowledge making in schools during this era. For example, and very briefly: in Australia (as elsewhere), the growth in community, alternative and open schooling during the 1970s points to some of the ways in which the flow of new sociology of education ideas, mixed with de-schooling society and radical democratic projects (e.g. Freire, 1972 ; Illich, 1971 ), formed part of the context shaping the administration and design of schools, the nature of teachers’ work, and curriculum practices, priorities and ambitions (e.g. McLeod & Rosén Rasmussen, 2021 ).

As I was drafting this introductory note, I repeatedly and mistakenly wrote the subtitle for Knowledge and Control as’ new directions in the sociology of education’, as if that collection were documenting and reporting on existing new directions. In fact, the correct subtitle is ‘new directions for the sociology of education’ which, for me at least, evokes a very different tone and ambition; one that is more manifesto-like, self-consciously setting the agenda and marking out its own confident role in that future. A confidence in the authority and purpose of the sociology of education, of its own paradigm-breaking direction, one fundamentally tied to the sociology of knowledge and particular political agendas, is perhaps one of the most striking contrasts with what is arguably a more uncertain, less all-knowing and more situated sociological imagination in education today.

In addition to the authors contributing to this section, I wish to acknowledge the contribution of Dr Eve Mayes (Deakin University) who presented a paper as part of this forum at the AARE 2022 conference.

Acker, S. (1981). No-woman’s-land: British sociology of education 1960–1979. Sociological Review, 29 (1), 77–104.

Article   Google Scholar  

Apple, M. W. (1979). Ideology and curriculum . Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Book   Google Scholar  

Arnot, M. (1982). Male hegemony, social class and women’s education. The Journal of Education, 164 (1), 64–89.

Bates, R. J. (1980). New developments in the new sociology of education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 1 (1), 67–79.

Bernstein, B. (1975). Class, codes and control . Vol. 3 volumes. Routledge & K. Paul, 1975.

Bourdieu, P. & Passeron, J-C. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture . Sage Studies in Social and Educational Change; v. 5. Sage Publications.

Bowles, S. & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and the contradictions of economic life . Basic Books.

Dale, R., Esland, G., & MacDonald, M. (Eds.). (1976). Schooling and capitalism: A sociological reader . Routledge & Kegan Paul for the Open University Press.

Google Scholar  

David, M. (1980). The state, the family, and education . Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed . Translated by M B Ramos. Penguin.

Illich, I. (1971). Deschooling society . Penguin.

Karabel, J., & Halsey, A. H. (1976). The new sociology of education. Theory and Society, 3 (4), 529–552.

McLeod, J., & Rosén Rasmussen, L. (2021). Open-plan schooling and everyday utopias: Australia and Denmark in the 1970s. Oxford Review of Education, 47 (5), 659–680. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2021.1958771

McRobbie, A. (1978). Jackie: An ideology of adolescent femininity . Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, University of Birmingham, April 1978. http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/1808/

Young, M. F. D., (Ed.). (1971). Knowledge and control: New directions for the sociology of education . Collier-Macmillan.

Young, M. F. D. (1998). The curriculum of the future: From the “new sociology of education” to a critical theory of learning . Falmer Press. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unimelb/detail.action?docID=165302#

Young, M. F. D. (2005). Bringing knowledge back in: From social constructivism to social realism in the sociology of education . Routledge. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unimelb/detail.action?docID=198477#goto_toc

Download references

Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Education, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

Julie McLeod

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julie McLeod .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

McLeod, J. The ‘new sociology of education’, then and now: looking back to the 1970s and ahead to today. Curric Perspect 43 , 183–186 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-023-00213-y

Download citation

Published : 03 October 2023

Issue Date : September 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-023-00213-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• School knowledge
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

The Sociology Teacher

The 'nutshells' provide concentrated summaries. Use the arrows or swipe across to explore topics in more detail, including key perspectives  and sociologists .

Want a more engaging way of revising key terms and sociologists? Download our revision app from the App Store!

Topic 1 - Class Differences in Achievement (External Factors)

In a nutshell

Some sociologists believe that working class underachievement is due to factors outside the school. Such factors include material deprivation (the inability to afford basic resources, such as adequate housing, food and heating) and cultural deprivation (deficiencies in home and family backgrounds, such as inadequate socialisation, inadequate language skills and inappropriate attitudes/values). In addition, cultural capital (Knowledge, language, attitudes and values , and lifestyle) gives the middle-class an inbuilt advantage in a middle-class controlled education system.

Topic 2 - Class Differences in Achievement (Internal  Factors)

Some sociologists believe working class underachievement is the product of factors inside the school environment that hinder a pupils ability to achieve. These factors include: labelling, streaming, pupil subcultures, pupil identities and the development of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Topic 3 - ETHNIC Differences in Achievement

Trends in statistics have shown Chinese pupils to achieve the best in education, whereas black Caribbean and Gypsy Roma pupils have fallen behind. Some sociologists identify ethnic differences in achievement as the result of factors outside the school, such as language skills, family structure, attitudes and values, and material deprivation - which place minority ethnic groups at a disadvantage. However, some sociologists argue ethnic differences occur through factors inside the school environment - notably, the ethnocentric curriculum, labelling, pupil subcultures and institutional racism.

Topic 4 - GENDER Differences in Achievement

In recent years, statistics have shown that girls now outperform boys in educational attainment. Sociologists suggest the increased achievement in girls educational performance is the result of external factors (girls changing ambitions, changes in the family, changes in women's employment) and internal factors (equal opportunities, teacher attention, coursework). In reverse, they also suggest reasons for boys underachievement - notably, the feminisation of schooling, the decline in manual labour, and ‘laddish’ subcultures. Sociologists also suggest reasons for the difference in gender subject choices and reflect on gendered identities.

topic 5 - the role of education

Functionalists value education in the respect that it provides necessary functions for the rest of society. Similarly, the New Right determine in order to fulfil such functions, schools should be centred around the consumer and their choices. However, Marxists criticise both Functionalists and the New Right in arguing the education system merely serves the needs of capitalism, by ensuring the failure of working-class pupils. Feminists also reject the education system for producing gender inequalities.

topic 6 - educational policy

Educational policy has had a profound impact on society. There has been a shift in policy from the 1940’s where the tripartite system existed, legitimising inequality in education, to the new system of comprehensive schooling introduced in 1965. Although the New Labour policies sought to reduce inequality, the conservative policies have reintroduced a system of inequality by encouraging privatisation and marketisation.

Reference Library

Collections

• See what's new
• All Resources
• Student Resources
• Assessment Resources
• Teaching Resources
• CPD Courses
• Livestreams

Study notes, videos, interactive activities and more!

Sociology news, insights and enrichment

Currated collections of free resources

Browse resources by topic

• All Sociology Resources

Resource Selections

Currated lists of resources

Study Notes

Parsons on Education

Last updated 25 Nov 2019

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share by Email

Talcott Parsons’ ideas are very much influenced by Durkheim . Again, he sees education as performing an important role in terms of establishing shared norms and values, but Parsons is particularly interested in how education facilitates role allocation . For Parsons, the education system helps society to be meritocratic .

Meritocracy describes a society whereby jobs and pay are allocated based on an individual’s talent and achievements rather than social status. Therefore, individuals that work hard will be rewarded in society, whilst those who do not will not be rewarded. Instead of people holding positions in society based on what their parents did and being born into a high or low status ( ascribed status ) people, through their efforts and their abilities, attain achieved status . Education sifts and sorts people into their appropriate jobs. Of course, one element of this is ascribed rather than achieved: natural ability, talent or intelligence. But this is fair and how it should be and has nothing to do with family background, gender, ethnicity, etc.

The education system teaches people the value of making an effort, because effort is rewarded. That is useful in itself but it also, according to Parsons, ensures that people end up performing the social roles to which they are best suited. The intelligent and hardworking get higher qualifications that give them access to the sorts of jobs that require those sorts of qualities.

Evaluating Parsons on education

Marxists criticise the functionalist view of role allocation and "sifting and sorting" arguing that the appearance of meritocracy is nothing but ideology. They call this the myth of meritocracy . They argue that the proletariat are persuaded to believe that the rich and powerful reached their positions through their hard work and natural ability rather than because of their privileged birth because this then leads them to accept inequality as fair. They argue instead that class inequalities are reproduced in the next generation and that the education system plays a key role in this. As such they argue that the myth of meritocracy plays an important part in developing a false class consciousness .

Bowles and Gintis conducted a study which demonstrated how IQ played a relatively small part in academic success and then whether academic success translated into economic success also greatly depended on social class, ethnicity and gender.

FURTHER READING ON PARSONS AND EDUCATION

Aqa gcse sociology classic texts: the school class as a social system (talcott parsons, 1961), aqa gcse sociology classic texts: schooling in capitalist america (bowles & gintis, 1976), essential revision aids for education.

Education Revision Flashcards for AQA A-Level Sociology

Printed Resource

Education Study Book for AQA A-Level Sociology

Education Exam Skills Workbook for AQA A-Level Sociology

• Education System
• Emile Durkheim

You might also like

Example answer for question 2 paper 1: a level sociology, june 2017 (aqa).

Exam Support

BBC Stories

5th December 2017

The Joy of Podcasts: Education - Grammar Schools

27th March 2018

BBC 2 Series: School

10th December 2018

AQA GCSE Sociology Classic Texts: Beachside Comprehensive (Stephen Ball, 1981)

Bbc analysis podcast: the problem with boys.

31st October 2019

British Female Scientists

10th February 2020

Sociology in the News: ‘Parents are frightened for themselves and for their children’

7th September 2022

Our subjects

• › Criminology
• › Economics
• › Geography
• › Health & Social Care
• › Psychology
• › Sociology
• › Teaching & learning resources
• › Student revision workshops
• › Online student courses
• › CPD for teachers
• › Livestreams
• › Teaching jobs

Boston House, 214 High Street, Boston Spa, West Yorkshire, LS23 6AD Tel: 01937 848885

• › Contact us
• › Terms of use
• › Privacy & cookies

© 2002-2024 Tutor2u Limited. Company Reg no: 04489574. VAT reg no 816865400.

Top 10 Reasons Why We Study Sociology Of Education: Beyond the Classroom

• Post author By admin
• September 28, 2023

Discover 10 reasons why we study sociology of education. Gain insights into social structures, inequalities, and educational policies.

Education isn’t just about textbooks and classrooms; it’s a key driver of how societies work. Ever wondered why some students excel while others struggle?

Or why schools can feel like such different worlds? That’s where sociology of education steps in. It’s like peeking behind the curtain to understand the magic of education.

In this article, we’re going to explore why studying the sociology of education is a must in today’s world. No jargon, just plain talk about how this field helps us see education in a whole new light.

We’ll uncover ten solid reasons why sociology of education matters – from tackling inequality to shaping policies and making classrooms more inclusive.

So, join us on this journey as we unravel the fascinating world of education through the lens of sociology.

Table of Contents

10 Reasons Why We Study Sociology Of Education

Have a close look at 10 reason why we study sociology of education:-

Understanding Educational Inequality

Have you ever wondered why school can be a different experience for every student? Well, sociology of education is like our guide to unraveling this mystery of educational inequality.

Think of it as a pair of X-ray glasses for the education system. These glasses reveal the hidden factors that affect a student’s journey. It’s like finding out that some students have to climb mountains while others have a smooth path.

But here’s the exciting part: sociology of education doesn’t just stop at showing us the problem. It hands us the tools to fix it. It’s all about making sure every student, no matter where they’re from, has a fair shot at success.

Influencing Policy

Now, let’s get real about how sociology of education shakes things up. It’s like a wise mentor for policymakers, giving them the lowdown on what needs fixing in education.

Think of it as a guidebook to creating fairer, better educational policies. These policies aren’t just for a few; they’re for everyone in the class.

Imagine it as a bridge connecting classrooms and government offices. Sociology of education points out what’s working and what’s not, with a big sign that says “Let’s be fair.”

With these insights, policymakers can make smarter decisions. They can tweak the rules, make sure resources go where they’re most needed, and make education fit every student like a comfy shoe. It’s all about making sure every student has an equal chance to shine.

Improving Teaching

Let’s dive into how sociology of education can be a teacher’s secret weapon. It’s like having a magic wand that helps teachers connect with students from all backgrounds.

Think of it as a handy guidebook for teachers, full of tips to make learning a blast for every student. It’s all about understanding that each student is unique and may need a different approach.

Picture it as a bridge between teachers and their students. Sociology of education gives teachers superpowers to make lessons more exciting, relatable, and effective, no matter where a student comes from.

With these insights, teachers can tweak their teaching styles, ensuring that every student feels seen and valued. It’s all about creating a classroom where learning is an adventure for everyone.

Analyzing Educational Institutions

Now, let’s dig into how sociology of education helps us see the bigger picture. It’s like having a magic lens that shows us how schools do more than just teach lessons – they shape our whole world.

Think of it as a backstage pass to the school show. Sociology of education lets us peek behind the scenes and understand how schools mold not just our minds, but our culture, our values, and our society.

Picture it as a treasure map leading us to the heart of what education really means. Schools aren’t just places with classrooms; they’re the places where our future is shaped.

With these insights, we can see that education is more than textbooks and tests. It’s about building the world of tomorrow, one student at a time, and appreciating how schools are the architects of that future.

Promoting Inclusive Education

Now, let’s dive into something truly important – inclusive education. It’s like having a friend who makes sure everyone feels welcome, no matter who they are.

Think of it as a cheerleader for diversity. Sociology of education says, “Let’s make sure every student, no matter what, gets a front-row seat.” It’s about celebrating what makes each student special.

Imagine it as a bridge that connects students from all walks of life. Sociology of education encourages schools to be places where everyone is not only welcome but also supported.

With these insights, we’re creating classrooms where every student can thrive. It’s all about making sure education is a place where everyone belongs, where differences are not just accepted but celebrated, and where everyone has a chance to shine.

Global Perspective

Now, let’s take a trip around the world with sociology of education. It’s like having a globe in our hands, allowing us to see education from a truly global viewpoint.

Think of it as a window to different classrooms across the globe. Sociology of education gives us the ability to look beyond borders and see how education works in various cultures. It’s like discovering that while classrooms may look different, the goal is often the same – to educate and empower.

Imagine it as a bridge that connects students from different corners of the world. Sociology of education encourages us to learn from others, to understand the diverse ways education is approached, and to appreciate the common threads that tie us together.

With these insights, we gain a broader understanding of education worldwide. It’s about celebrating the richness of educational experiences globally and finding inspiration from different cultures to improve our own educational systems.

Recognizing Teachers’ Roles

Let’s take a moment to appreciate teachers. Sociology of education reminds us that teachers are more than just educators; they’re like mentors, guiding lights in students’ lives.

Think of it as giving a big shout-out to their influence. Sociology of education says, “Hey, teachers do some amazing stuff beyond the lessons.” It’s about realizing that teachers are the superheroes who help students grow.

Imagine it as a bridge connecting teachers and students on a personal level. Sociology of education reminds us that teachers leave a mark that goes beyond textbooks. They inspire, support, and shape young minds.

With these insights, we can truly value the incredible role teachers play in shaping not just education but also the future of our world. It’s all about celebrating these everyday heroes.

Cultural Impact

Now, let’s dive into how sociology of education uncovers the fascinating interplay between education and culture. It’s like discovering that these two are like best friends who influence each other in exciting ways.

Think of it as a dynamic dance. Sociology of education shows us how education isn’t just shaped by the culture it’s in; it also shapes and transforms cultural norms, values, and beliefs.

Imagine it as a bridge connecting education and culture. Sociology of education helps us see that these two aren’t distant relatives; they’re closely connected, and they have conversations that affect our lives.

With these insights, we can grasp that education isn’t just about lessons and classrooms; it’s a cultural journey that reflects, challenges, and enriches our worldviews.

Addressing Challenges

Now, let’s dive into how sociology of education rolls up its sleeves to tackle the real challenges in education. It’s like having a trusted problem-solving ally, always ready to face difficulties head-on.

Think of it as shining a light on the dark spots. Sociology of education helps us identify and understand issues like students dropping out, insufficient resources, and the persistent problem of bullying.

Imagine it as a bridge connecting problems to solutions. It’s all about finding ways to make education better, fairer, and safer for everyone involved. It’s a call to action that says, “Let’s work together to make things right.”

With these insights, we can join forces to create a more positive and inclusive educational experience. It’s about ensuring that no student is left behind and every school becomes a place where learning is not just effective but also enjoyable for all.

Preparing for the Future

Now, let’s dive into how studying the sociology of education helps us get ready for what’s down the road. It’s like having a treasure map that guides us toward meeting the unique needs of future learners.

Think of it as a toolbox filled with knowledge and skills for tomorrow. Sociology of education equips us with the tools to adapt and shape educational systems that can keep up with the changing world and the students of the future.

Imagine it as a bridge to the unknown. It’s about recognizing that our world is evolving rapidly, and education needs to evolve with it. Sociology of education keeps us one step ahead, ready to embrace whatever the future holds.

With these insights, we become the architects of education’s future. It’s about ensuring that our educational systems are nimble, innovative, and always prepared to provide the best learning experiences for the generations yet to come.

What are the reasons for the study of sociology of education?

Here are the reasons why studying the sociology of education is so important:

Unraveling Educational Inequality

Ever wondered why some students seem to have it all, while others face hurdles? Sociology of education helps us uncover the answers by diving deep into the inequalities in our education system.

Shaping Fairer Policies

It’s like a playbook for policymakers, giving them the insights they need to create educational rules that work for everyone, not just a select few.

Empowering Teachers

Imagine having a secret recipe for connecting with every student. Sociology of education offers just that, helping teachers tailor their methods to engage students from all walks of life.

Peeking Behind the Curtain

Ever thought about what goes on behind those school doors? Sociology of education opens that door, revealing how schools mold our society, culture, and how we pass on knowledge.

Celebrating Inclusivity

It’s the champion of diversity, ensuring that no student feels left out, whether they have a disability or come from a unique background.

Thinking Globally

It’s like giving education a passport. Sociology of education offers a global perspective, letting us compare how education works worldwide.

Honoring Teachers

Beyond just educators, teachers are the influencers who shape our lives. Sociology of education gives them the recognition they deserve.

Cultural Discovery

Education isn’t just facts; it’s deeply woven into our culture. Sociology of education uncovers how education influences and is influenced by our cultural norms, values, and beliefs.

Solving Problems

When challenges like high dropout rates or bullying emerge, sociology of education is there to shine a light on them and find solutions.

Future-Proofing Education

Finally, it’s all about getting ready for what’s next. Sociology of education equips us with the tools to adapt education to the ever-changing needs of future generations .

What are the 10 importance of sociology in society?

Here are ten compelling ways sociology makes a real impact in our society:

Society’s Navigator

Sociology acts as a guide, helping us navigate the intricate web of human connections, institutions, and structures that define our society.

Agent of Change

It’s the driving force behind positive social change. Sociology exposes inequalities and social issues, sparking action, activism, and policy reforms for a more equitable world.

Problem Solver

Sociologists dive deep into society’s problems, from poverty to discrimination. Their research is the key to finding solutions and enhancing the quality of life for everyone.

Cultural Compass

Sociology helps us decode the cultural influences that shape our beliefs, values, and behaviors. It’s a window into the rich tapestry of diverse cultures and a roadmap for multicultural coexistence.

Social Harmony

It unravels the mysteries of social interactions. By understanding how people connect within groups and communities, we can improve relationships, communication, and social well-being.

Institutional Insights

Sociology peels back the layers of key institutions like family, education, government, and religion, shedding light on how they work and how they can be improved.

Policy Power

Sociological research fuels the engine of policy-making. It informs decisions on crucial issues like healthcare, education, and social welfare, with the aim of improving lives.

Gender Equality Advocate

Sociology takes a stand for gender equality. It challenges stereotypes, discrimination, and advocates for equal rights, amplifying the voices of marginalized groups.

Community Builder

Sociologists play a vital role in strengthening communities. They identify needs, promote civic participation, and foster unity among neighbors.

Global Insight

Sociology offers a global perspective, helping us tackle international challenges such as climate change, migration, and economic disparities. It promotes understanding and collaboration on a worldwide scale.

In a nutshell, sociology is the compass that guides us through the intricate labyrinth of society, striving for positive change, cultural appreciation, and social well-being.

What are the three main purposes of sociology in education?

Here are the three main roles of sociology in education in a more engaging way:

Educational Insights

Sociology gives us a backstage pass to the educational world. It helps us understand how schools and colleges operate, from classrooms to the entire system. It’s like a behind-the-scenes tour that reveals how education really works.

Uncovering Inequality

Sociology in education is like a detective, always on the lookout for clues about why some students have it easier than others. It examines the impact of things like money, race, and gender on education. By shining a light on these inequalities, sociology helps us work towards a fairer system.

Guiding Improvements

Think of sociology as a GPS for education. It provides directions for policymakers and educators to make things better. Research in this field helps shape policies, design better curricula, and improve teaching methods. It’s all about ensuring that education is the best it can be for everyone.

As we wrap up our journey through “10 Reasons Why We Study Sociology of Education,” it’s evident that this field is the key to unlocking the doors of educational understanding and improvement.

Sociology of education isn’t confined to the pages of textbooks; it’s a dynamic force that propels us toward a brighter educational future. It empowers us to tackle issues of inequality, celebrates the heroes in our classrooms, and reveals the intricate dance between education and culture.

In a world that’s ever-changing, sociology of education is our compass, guiding us toward creating adaptable and inclusive educational systems for generations to come.

So, let’s remember that education isn’t just about facts and figures; it’s about the endless possibilities it offers. Sociology of education is our roadmap to a world where learning knows no bounds, and every student has a chance to shine.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the sociology of education.

The sociology of education is a field that examines the social aspects of learning, teaching, and educational institutions, focusing on how they shape and are shaped by society.

Why is studying educational inequality important?

Studying educational inequality helps identify disparities in opportunities and paves the way for creating more equitable educational systems.

How can teachers benefit from the sociology of education?

Teachers can gain insights into their students’ backgrounds and needs, enabling them to develop more effective teaching strategies.

Is the sociology of education relevant globally?

Yes, it offers a global perspective on educational systems, allowing for cross-cultural comparisons and learning.

What is the future of education according to sociology?

Sociology of education helps us prepare for the future by equipping us with the knowledge and tools to adapt to evolving educational needs and challenges.

• australia (2)
• duolingo (13)
• Education (284)
• General (78)
• How To (18)
• IELTS (127)
• Latest Updates (162)
• Malta Visa (6)
• Permanent residency (1)
• Programming (31)
• Scholarship (1)
• Sponsored (4)
• Study Abroad (187)
• Technology (12)
• work permit (8)

Recent Posts

Sociological Perspectives: Key Concepts

Table of Contents

Last Updated on November 15, 2022 by Karl Thompson

Definitions of key terms for the five basic sociological perspectives – Functionalism, Marxism, Feminism, Social Action Theory and Postmodernism.

More details on the perspectives below can be found at the relevant links on my sociological theories page , which has been written to specifically cover the AQA A-level sociology syllabus.

Functionalism

Functionalism is a structural consensus theory which argues that social institutions generally perform positive functions such as maintaining value consensus and social order. Key Functionalist theorists include Emile Durkheim (1858 – 1917) and Talcott Parsons (1902 -1979).

Anomie refers to a state of normlessness which arises because of a lack of social regulation. Anomie occurs when there are either too few rules guiding individual behaviour or where there are conflicting sets of rules, which contradict each other (as in Merton’s Strain Theory)

Functional Prerequisits

Functionalists believed that societies have four basic functions which must be performed in order for them to carry on surviving.

Functional Fit Theory

In pre-industrial society economic production was done within the family, and the family performed many functions such as the education of children as well as that of production.

However when industrial society emerged and the factory became the primary institution which produced things the functions of the family changed: they were reduced to doing two things: the reproduction of the young and the stabilisation of adult personalities.

Mechanical and Organic solidarity

These are two concepts developed by Durkheim to explain the different types of social bonding mechanisms in pre-industrial and industrial societies.

More complex industrial societies are held together by organic solidarity – they are larger and have huge amounts of people working in different roles who share nothing in common with other people working in other roles – thus industrial societies require specific institutions to achieve solidarity at the societal level – such as education and trades unions – this is organic solidarity.

Meritocracy

Meritocracy is where individuals achieve based on their ability and effort, rather than on the basis of their social background or who they know.

The theory was that those who failed would accept that they had been offered the chance and yet failed on their own lack of merits and so deserved a lower status job than those who where more able and harder working than themselves.

The problem with the concept of Meritocracy is that it is a myth, at least where education is concerned.

Norms and Values

Values = major and lasting ideas and beliefs about what is desirable and undesirable. Important sources of values include religion, politics, and one’s family background.

Organic Analogy

Positive functions of institutions.

The Functionalist idea that institutions generally benefit society and most people within a society. For example, the nuclear family provides a stable and secure environment in which to raise children and school prepares individuals for work and is necessary for an advanced economy to work effectively.

Role Allocation

Role Allocation is one of the main functions of education systems in industrial societies. It is where students are sifted through a tiered examination system and sorted into their appropriated job roles based on their qualifications.

Social Evolution

Social facts.

Durkheim argued that sociology should limit itself to the study of objective social facts rather than subjective individual thoughts and feelings.

Social Integration

Social integration refers to the extent to which people are bonded to other people and institutions in a society. Someone who is working, married, has children and does lots of activities with other people is more integrated than someone who is unemployed, single, childless and does nothing all day.

Social Regulation

Durkheim theorised that too little or too much social regulation can increase the suicide rate in societies. Just as with social integration healthy societies have a balance between rules and individual freedoms.

Socialisation

Society as a system.

Sociologists should focus on the macro level of society using statistics to study society as a whole and how societies change, and we can understand social trends without looking at individuals’ thoughts and feelings.

Stabilisation of Adult Personalities

Industrial factory work was hard and stressful for men, but they were able to cope with it because of the traditional nuclear family set up at home – with their wife taking on a caring role and helping them to de-stress when they go home.

Strain Theory

Writing in the 1940s Merton believed that rising crime in American could be explained because everyone was told they could get a decent education and then a decent paying job but in fact there were not sufficient legitimate opportunities for everyone to be able to achieve these goals.

Value Consensus

Marxism is a structural conflict theory which argues that societies are divided along social class lines. There are two main classes – the Bourgeoisie who own Capital and the Proletariat who must work for wages. In Marxist theory the Bourgeoise control social institutions and use them to maintain their power. The Key Marxist thinker was Karl Marx (1818 -1883)

Capitalism and Private Property

Capital refers to financial wealth – especially that used to start businesses (rather than emergency savings or the house you live in). Capitalism is a system which gives private individuals with capital the freedom to invest, make money and retain profit.

Private property is crucial to Capitalism, because the protection of private property rights is what makes the system work: the capitalist class are allowed to maintain the wealth from their investments, rather than having their property redistributed by the state, as would happen under communism.

Exploitation

Ideological control  .

Marx believed that political action was necessary to ‘wake up’ the proletariat and bring them to revolutionary class consciousness. Eventually, following a revolution, private property would be abolished and with it the profit motive and the desire to exploit. In the communist society, people would be more equal, have greater freedom and be happier.

‘Patriarchy refers to a society in which there are unequal power relations between women and men whereby women are systematically disadvantaged and oppressed’ (London Feminist Network)

Gender Scripts

Liberal/ marxist and radical feminism, deconstruction.

Involves critically analysing normative behaviour or truth-claims more generally, exposing the ‘relational nature’ of knowledge. In Feminist theory, this mainly means exposing the binary opposition ‘male-female’ and all of the traditional norms associated with this division as a social construct, rather than something which is rooted in objective biological divisions.. Such critical analysis forms the basis of breaking down such gender norms and opens up the possibility of a living a life free from the restraint of such g norms.

Interactionism

The i and the me.

The ‘I’ is the active aspect of one’s personality, the ‘Me’ is the social aspect – the me is one’s social identity, which the ‘I’ reflects on.

The looking glass self

Social identity, backstage and front stage.

Key ideas within Goffman’s dramaturgical theory – frontstage is any arena within society where one has to act out one’s identity, such as the workplace or the street, but it might also be in the home itself on certain occasions. Backstage is where one rehearses and prepares for one’s front stage performances, or just relaxes.

The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

Postmodernism.

Postmodernists argue that the old structures and certainties of the modernist era are now gone (hence ‘post’ modernity).  With the shift to late Capitalism and the rise of Consumer society social life is now more fluid and unpredictable and individuals have much more freedom to shape their identities.

Some of the key concepts associated with Postmodernism are covered below…

Service Sector Economy

Consumer culture, social fragmentation.

The breaking up and splitting apart of communities into smaller groups, which are relatively isolated from each other.

Hyperreality

Signposting.

Please click here to return to the homepage – ReviseSociology.com

Share this:

13 thoughts on “sociological perspectives: key concepts”, leave a reply cancel reply, discover more from revisesociology.