Education and Inequality: Manifest and Latent Functions

This article discusses the manifest and latent functions of education and how they contribute to inequality in schools. It also explores the causes of unequal quality of education, such as unequal school resources and uneven academic opportunities. The article concludes by discussing how the education system reinforces social inequalities based on class, gender, race, and ethnicity.

Surname 1
Assignment # 8
Name
Institution

Surname 2
According to Constanta and Luciana (5), education can be defined as a process of
acquiring knowledge, skills or habits. This can either be done through teaching or training.
Education is an important tool especially for students aspiring to get employed after their
academic period. Education has both manifest and latent functions. Manifest functions are the
ones which are intended and recognized. They include providing teaching to the students and
giving them academic or experience skills to get a job in the future. Education also acts as a tool
for improving on the social culture. This is whereby most students find it easy to socialize with
the society hence improving on their relationship status quo.
On the other hand, latent functions of education are the unintended and unrecognized
outcomes to procedures a student participates in during their education (Loretta 71). These
include getting a lifetime partner. Many people get their spouses in colleges and universities.
This is not one of the functions of schools but most people find themselves in these situations.
For the schools to ensure students get knowledge and skills necessary for their employment, they
provide them with the correct academic materials and employ qualified staffs from different field
of study.
Unequal quality of education is one of the most common problems experienced in
various universities and colleges (Loretta 72). Some of the major causes of these inequalities
include unequal school resources, uneven academic opportunities and different teachers in terms
of quality. With these aspects, schools are likely to reproduce a class of different people in
society hence creating social problems. Testing is a process of measuring how well the students
are using the learning materials and if they are meeting the stated goals and objectives. Testing
can bring inequality in schools if the tests are not set in a standard manner and are not
predetermined.

Surname 3
On the other hand, tracking means grouping students according to their academic ability
for all subjects or certain classes (Constanta and Luciana 7). This process can bring about
inequality in schools. For example, in a group which seems to have better students than others
may receive more favors than others hence creating inequality. This also minimizes chances of
socializing for the students. Funding is the process in which various sectors take part in financing
education. This may include providing them with academic resources or money to employ
teachers. This process can bring inequalities in schools, especially where some schools are
getting more academic resources than others. Schools which have been given a lot of money are
able to employ qualified teachers compared to which received little hence causing inequalities.
Conflict theorist affirms that education system or curriculum reinforces social inequalities
in school that comes as a result of differences in class, gender race, and ethnicity (Constanta and
Luciana 9). In most schools, the fulfillment of student’s education is based on their social class.
For students who have a high class are likely to receive higher opportunities in the curriculum
than those of low class despite their academic ability or desire to learn.

Surname 4
References
Constanta, Olteanu & Luciana, Olteanu. Equations, Functions, Critical Aspects and
Mathematical Communication. International Education Studies, vol. 5, no. 5, 2012, pp. 4-10
Loretta, Mason-w. Unequal Opportunities: A Profile of the Distribution of
Special Education Teachers. Exceptional Children, vol. 81, no. 2, 2015, pp. 70-75