AQA Sociology education questions

One function is creating social solidarity: Durkheim argued school passes on society's shared norms and values, for example through teaching a shared history, which binds individuals together. A second function is role allocation: Davis and Moore argue exams sift and sort pupils by ability, so the most able are allocated to the most important jobs.

One way is by teaching acceptance of hierarchy: pupils learn to obey teachers and the head, which Bowles and Gintis argue prepares them to accept managers' authority at work. A second is extrinsic rewards: pupils learn to work for grades rather than enjoyment, just as workers work for wages.

One material factor is overcrowded housing: pupils may have no quiet space to do homework, so they fall behind. A second is the hidden costs of schooling: poorer families may not afford uniform, trips or a laptop, so their children miss out on learning others take for granted.

One cultural factor is speech codes: Bernstein argued school uses the elaborated code, so working-class pupils who use a restricted code are at a disadvantage. A second is subcultural values: Sugarman argued working-class subculture values immediate gratification, making long-term study less appealing. A third is cultural capital: Bourdieu argued middle-class pupils bring the tastes and knowledge schools reward, so they turn their background into qualifications.

One way is setting: pupils in low sets may be given less challenging work and lower expectations, so their results fall. A second is educational triage: Gillborn and Youdell found league-table pressure led schools to focus on borderline pupils and neglect those judged hopeless. A third is the curriculum: if it reflects mainly white British history and culture, some minority ethnic pupils may feel it is not for them.

One way is the hidden curriculum: Bowles and Gintis argue school teaches working-class pupils to accept hierarchy, preparing them for low-paid work. A second is setting: working-class pupils are more often placed in lower sets, so they gain fewer qualifications. A third is cultural capital: Bourdieu argues school rewards middle-class culture, so middle-class pupils convert their background into qualifications.

1. Role allocation (Davis and Moore): exams sift and sort pupils, so the most able fill the most important jobs; develop how unequal rewards motivate training and why this helps the economy.

2. Specialist skills (Durkheim) or vocational education: a complex division of labour needs workers with different skills; develop through courses such as apprenticeships and how they meet employers' needs.

Alternative second route: the Marxist correspondence principle, where the hidden curriculum produces an obedient workforce for capitalism.

No evaluation is needed.

1. Anti-school subcultures (Lacey, Willis): pupils denied status in low sets seek it from peers by messing about; develop into less work and fewer qualifications.

2. Pro-school subcultures: pupils in high sets gain status from achievement; develop into motivation and better results, widening the gap between sets.

Other valid routes: laddish masculinity, Sewell's responses, Fuller's girls. No evaluation is needed.

1. Hook: lower teacher expectations affecting teaching and discipline. Link to labelling: pupils seen as a threat are disciplined more and may be excluded, missing lessons; or they are placed in lower sets, a self-fulfilling prophecy.

2. Hook: a curriculum reflecting a white British view. Link to the ethnocentric curriculum: some pupils may feel school is not for them, lowering engagement and results.

Qualify: Fuller shows pupils can reject labels, and Sewell argues outside factors matter more.

Intro: the functionalist view that education serves society as a whole.

View: Durkheim's solidarity and skills; Parsons' bridge and meritocracy; Davis and Moore's role allocation, applied to Item Q's shared values and sorting.

Challenge: Marxists argue meritocracy is a myth; class shapes outcomes, so 'sorting by ability' legitimates inequality.

Challenge: feminists and interactionists; pupils resist (Willis), so school does not simply integrate.

Alternative: the New Right accept functions but say the state fails to deliver them.

Judgement: functionalism describes what school claims to do, but evidence of class and gender inequality shows it overstates consensus and meritocracy.

Intro: the gender gap and the claim that wider society explains it.

View: feminism, women's employment, family change and Sharpe's changing ambitions, applied to Item S.

Challenge: inside-school factors such as equal opportunities policies, role models and assessment styles.

Alternative: boys' underachievement through laddish subcultures and the decline of male jobs.

Qualify: class and ethnicity shape which girls and boys do well.

Judgement: wider social change created girls' motivation, but schools turned it into results, so the factors work together.

Intro: the debate between outside and inside explanations.

View: cultural and material deprivation; Sewell on family and street culture, applied to Item V.

Challenge: these blame families; Gillborn argues institutional racism in school, such as exclusions and setting.

Challenge: labelling and the ethnocentric curriculum, with evidence of resistance (Fuller).

Qualify: ethnic groups differ widely, and class and gender interact with ethnicity.

Judgement: outside factors matter, but school processes turn them into different outcomes.