Sociologists from different schools of thought have very different opinions on these findings. .
Functionalists argue that the inequalities that exist within the education system do so for positive reasons. Talcott Parsons (Bilton, 1987) argued that schools take over from the family as the primary source of socialization, transmitting society's norms and values and preparing children for their role in adult life. School provides the future workforce with the basic skills required to "enable them to respond to constantly changing occupational requirements- (Bilton, 1987). Parsons also believed that school is a meritocracy and, regardless of class. Students with the ability to do well will enter the workforce at a more specialized level. Students without the ability will do less well, entering the workforce at a more menial level. Thus, both will be prepared for their future role in society and the appropriate places within the labor market will be filled. .
The functionalists view has been accused of painting a too optimistic picture. Functionalists may argue that it is necessity for the success of society, that not everyone can achieve in school, go on to University and consequently better jobs, but this offers little to those who feel they are have been kept down by the education system. Parsons in particular has been criticized for failing to give "consideration to the possibility that the values transmitted by the educational system may be those of a ruling minority rather than of society as whole- (Haralambos, 1995). The fact that teachers are generally middle class themselves could mean that the values being taught in school right away contradict those being taught at home, and possibly leaving the child feel confused and unable to live up to conflicting standards.
On the other edge of the side, Marxists look for the reasons for inequalities in education. Marxists argue that the role of the education system is to reinforce class differences.