Influences on the curriculum

Resources → Subject Notes → Sociology → Lesson Plan

Paper 3 – Education and Society (Cambridge International A‑Level Sociology 9699)

1. Key Definitions

  • Curriculum: The total set of programmes, subjects, content, teaching methods and assessment arrangements that schools are expected to deliver.
  • Formal (Policy) Curriculum: Statutory statements of what should be taught (national curricula, exam‑board specifications) together with non‑statutory guidance such as inspection frameworks and accreditation requirements.
  • Hidden Curriculum: The implicit messages about values, norms, expectations and power relations conveyed through school organisation, rules, teacher behaviour and classroom interaction.

2. Theories About the Role of Education

Cambridge expects candidates to describe, compare and evaluate the main sociological explanations for why societies have education systems.

Perspective Key Theorists Core Claims Strengths (Evaluation) Limitations (Evaluation)
Functionalist Émile Durkheim, Talcott Parsons
  • Education socialises individuals – transmits shared norms, values and skills needed for social cohesion.
  • Provides a meritocratic sorting (allocation) mechanism that matches talent with occupational roles.
  • Explains why societies need a coordinated system of knowledge.
  • Supported by evidence that schools teach basic literacy, numeracy and civic values.
  • Over‑states consensus; under‑estimates conflict and inequality.
  • Assumes a level playing field for meritocracy – empirically weak where class/ethnic gaps persist.
Marxist / Conflict Samuel Bowles & John Gintis; Pierre Bourdieu
  • Schools reproduce class structure by legitimising unequal power relations.
  • ‘Cultural capital’ and ‘habitus’ make middle‑class norms the hidden curriculum.
  • Credentialism secures the dominance of the ruling class.
  • Accounts for persistent attainment gaps across class and ethnicity.
  • Empirically supported by data on differential access to resources and tracking.
  • Can be overly deterministic – ignores agency and reform possibilities.
  • Less explanatory of why some working‑class pupils achieve high outcomes.
Feminist Berger & Levy; Basil Bernstein (gendered pedagogy)
  • Curriculum and pedagogy reflect patriarchal values, marginalising women’s experiences.
  • Gendered subject choices (e.g., STEM vs humanities) reproduce occupational segregation.
  • Highlights systematic gender bias in content, assessment and teacher expectations.
  • Supported by longitudinal data showing gender gaps in STEM participation.
  • Sometimes treats gender as a single category, overlooking intersection with class, race, sexuality.
  • Less developed in explaining macro‑level policy decisions.
Post‑structural / Critical Pedagogy Paulo Freire; Michael Apple (critical curriculum theory)
  • Education is a site of ideological struggle; knowledge is socially constructed.
  • Emphasises dialogic teaching, learner empowerment and the de‑construction of dominant discourses.
  • Provides tools for analysing power relations embedded in curricula.
  • Encourages transformative practice and student voice.
  • Can be abstract and difficult to operationalise in large‑scale policy analysis.
  • Limited empirical testing compared with functionalist/conflict approaches.

3. Education and Social Mobility

3.1 Forms of Mobility

  • Upward mobility – movement to a higher socioeconomic status.
  • Horizontal mobility – change of occupation/status without a shift in class position.
  • Downward mobility – movement to a lower socioeconomic status.
  • Inter‑generational mobility – comparison of a child’s status with that of their parents.
  • Intra‑generational mobility – movement up or down the ladder within an individual’s own lifetime.

3.2 Mechanisms Linking Schooling to Mobility

  1. Credentialism – qualifications act as gate‑keepers to higher‑paid occupations.
    Mobility impact: mainly upward (or upward‑to‑horizontal) when credentials are obtained; can lock out low‑track learners, producing downward mobility.
  2. Tracking / streaming – early selection into academic, vocational or technical pathways.
    Mobility impact: can accelerate upward mobility for high‑track students but entrench downward mobility for low‑track groups.
  3. Meritocratic ideals – belief that effort and ability determine outcomes.
    Mobility impact: masks structural barriers; may encourage upward mobility for those who succeed but legitimises inequality.
  4. Social networks – school contacts provide information, internships, university referrals.
    Mobility impact: often produces upward or horizontal mobility for pupils with advantaged networks; limits mobility for those lacking connections.

3.3 Comparative Illustration of Mobility Outcomes

Country Key Curriculum / System Feature Typical Mobility Outcome
Finland Comprehensive system, minimal early tracking, strong teacher professionalism High upward mobility; low socioeconomic gaps in attainment
Singapore Early streaming at age 12, high‑stakes examinations, strong link between qualifications and elite jobs Significant upward mobility for high‑achievers, pronounced stratification for low‑track students
Kenya Mixed public‑private system, limited access to secondary education, tuition‑fee pressure Low overall mobility; education benefits concentrated among wealthier families

4. Factors Influencing Educational Attainment

4.1 Intelligence and Educational Attainment

Two contrasting explanations dominate the debate:

  • Heritability / IQ argument – Proponents (e.g., Herrnstein & Murray) claim that innate cognitive ability, measured by IQ tests, largely determines academic success. Evidence includes the strong correlation between IQ scores and test results.
  • Social‑cultural / environmental argument – Critics (e.g., Coleman, Flynn) argue that family background, schooling quality, and cultural experiences shape test performance. The Flynn effect (rising IQ scores across generations) suggests environmental influence.

In exam answers, weigh the empirical support for each side, acknowledge that most sociologists adopt a *interactionist* stance – intelligence is mediated by social context.

4.2 Social‑Class and Educational Attainment

  • Data (e.g., UK PISA/GCSE) consistently show a gap of 1‑2 grades between working‑class and middle‑class pupils.
  • Mechanisms: differential cultural capital, access to private tutoring, early tracking, and expectations from teachers (self‑fulfilling prophecy).
  • Example: In Germany, children from higher‑status families are far more likely to enter the academic track (Gymnasium) than those from working‑class families.

4.3 Ethnicity and Educational Attainment

  • Achievement gaps persist in many countries. In the UK, Black Caribbean pupils historically under‑perform relative to White peers, while Asian pupils often exceed average attainment.
  • Explanations include: (i) differential cultural capital, (ii) experiences of discrimination or lower teacher expectations, (iii) school‑choice policies that can segregate pupils, and (iv) varying levels of parental involvement.
  • Policy response: targeted pupil premium funding, multicultural curricula, and anti‑bias training for staff.

4.4 Gender and Educational Attainment

  • Women now out‑number men in higher‑education enrolment in most OECD countries.
  • Persistent gendered outcomes: lower female participation in STEM subjects, higher male dropout rates, and gendered expectations influencing subject choice.
  • Key explanations: gendered socialisation (family, media), hidden curriculum reinforcing stereotypes, and differential encouragement from teachers.
  • Policy examples: gender‑balanced admissions in engineering programmes, single‑sex schools, and curriculum reforms that embed gender‑inclusive examples.

5. Influences on the Curriculum

Curriculum design is never neutral. The eight major influences are outlined below.

Influence Key Actors Typical Curriculum Impact Illustrative Global Example
Political Government ministries, legislators, inspection bodies Statutory curricula, national examinations, policy directives (e.g., cross‑curriculum priorities) Australia’s “Australian Curriculum” – mandatory sustainability and Aboriginal histories
Economic Employers, business associations, funding agencies STEM emphasis, vocational pathways, industry‑linked apprenticeships Germany’s dual‑system apprenticeship curriculum linking schools and firms
Social & Cultural Parents, NGOs, community groups Multicultural histories, language inclusion, anti‑bias training South Africa’s “CAPS” incorporating indigenous knowledge and languages
Religious Faith boards, religious authorities, interfaith councils Religious studies content, moral frameworks, optional faith‑based modules Malaysia’s compulsory Islamic Studies for Muslim students
Globalisation OECD, UNESCO, international NGOs Global citizenship, world languages, alignment with PISA/TIMSS standards Chile’s “Curriculum for the 21st Century” integrating global competencies
Technological EdTech firms, IT departments, ministries of digital affairs Computing from early ages, digital assessment tools, blended learning environments Estonia’s e‑curriculum – a national digital learning platform used in all schools
Professional & Academic University faculties, professional bodies, research institutes Evidence‑based content, specialist qualifications, updated science standards UK’s revised “Science Curriculum” after advances in genetics and climate science
Media Broadcast & digital media organisations, social‑media platforms Media‑literacy, digital citizenship, units on contemporary issues (e.g., mental health, climate activism) New Zealand’s “Digital Technologies” curriculum responding to online safety concerns

6. Critical Perspectives on Curriculum Influences

  • Functionalist view – sees political and economic inputs as rational responses to societal needs; curriculum change is portrayed as functional for cohesion.
  • Marxist / Conflict view – argues dominant groups manipulate all eight influences (especially media and technology) to preserve class power; the hidden curriculum is a tool of ideological control.
  • Feminist perspective – highlights how gender bias is reproduced through policy (e.g., subject mandates), media representations and hidden curriculum expectations.
  • Cultural‑capital (Bourdieu) approach – emphasises that the hidden curriculum privileges middle‑class norms, limiting upward mobility for working‑class pupils.
  • Post‑structural / Critical Pedagogy – stresses that curriculum can be contested and transformed via learner agency, digital media networks and global citizenship projects.

7. Suggested Diagram

Flowchart showing the interaction between the eight curriculum influences (Political, Economic, Social & Cultural, Religious, Globalisation, Technological, Professional & Academic, Media) and the three curriculum outcomes: Policy decisions (statutory content, assessment), Pedagogical practice (teaching methods, hidden curriculum), and Learner experience (knowledge, skills, values).

8. Key Points for Revision

  1. Define the formal, policy and hidden curriculum and give concrete examples of each.
  2. For each of the four major sociological perspectives, be able to:
    • state the core claim,
    • name the key theorist(s),
    • evaluate strengths, limitations and empirical support.
  3. Distinguish upward, horizontal, downward, inter‑generational and intra‑generational mobility; link each of the four schooling mechanisms to the relevant forms of mobility.
  4. Summarise the debates on intelligence, and outline how social‑class, ethnicity and gender each affect attainment (include at least one statistical illustration).
  5. Identify and describe the eight curriculum influences; for each give a global example and note the typical impact on content, pedagogy or assessment.
  6. Apply functionalist, Marxist, feminist, cultural‑capital and post‑structural lenses to evaluate whether a given curriculum change promotes social cohesion, reproduces inequality, or enables transformation.
  7. Always consider the hidden curriculum alongside the formal curriculum when analysing fairness, purpose and power relations in education.

Create an account or Login to take a Quiz

34 views
0 improvement suggestions

Log in to suggest improvements to this note.