Why I Disagree with Functionalism

I believe functionalism is fundamentally flawed. Standing on capitalistic ideologies this paradigm presents two problems. First, it creates an unequal starting ground for students and thus destroys a tenant on which it stands. Secondly, the functionalistic mindset undermines the society as a whole.
Every student is subject to different strengths and weakness due to both intrinsic and extrinsic factors. An effort should be made for everyone to receive and equal education. Functionalism believes that once equal education is granted, personal attributes such as merit, skill and motivation will determine whether or not a job with high reward will be achieved. School would then function to sort individuals into specific job areas and society would improve. I disagree on the basis that educational opportunities are not equal, and will never be, if functionalism operates on a nationalistic level. Functionalism at a nationalistic level would dictate that monetary rewards should be given to those of a particular skill set which society, justifiably or not, has deemed important. Such a system will inevitably create poverty. Poverty, in turn, will effect equal education as low economic standing has proven to be detrimental to learning. Children born into homes of low economic status are subject to issues such as poor medical attention and malnutrition which effect (even at a biological level) ability in several areas. This creates an unequal starting ground meaning that functionalism will never properly operate.
Functionalism undermines the nation it is operating. Specifying students into particular fields they are especially skilled in will kill what is left of a liberal education. If a society needs great economists, molecular biologists, and political scientists, and rewards are only comprehended as monetary gain, fields of expertise will become narrow-minded and the “organism” of society will become dismantled as solidarity is not compatible with competition. Here is an example. A great agricultural businessman may come up with an idea that will benefit his company. This idea is to create a corn seed that will self-terminate after one year. This would mean consumers of his product (farmers) would have to buy his product yearly and would increase his profits. To achieve his ends, he hires a great molecular biologist that designs such a seed. Now both have done a great job in their particular field and are rewarded monetarily because they are skilled at what they do. Farmers are now required to buy more seed, which they are not compensated for, because the business men and women who own the distribution companies will not pay more for corn. Now farmers are going out of business and the nation as a whole suffers. This story, as well as many like it, have been playing out in the US. How can we solve such problems? One solution would be to take a larger approach, outside functionalism, by incorporating more holistic ideologies and education. If molecular biologists or business men and women viewed their actions on a whole, seeing how their decisions effect other professions and national well being, problems like the story above would start to resolve. As it is, monetary gain, the reward for filling a particular societal need, is the only drive for education. (This is a functional mindset.) A liberal education would not be pursued because direct relevance to societal needs is not as easily perceived.
Functionalism can now be seen self-defeating at the level of the school and nation. I also disagree with it as it only serves the needs of particular nation and has no regard in serving the needs of other countries. What do we want to teach our students? As teachers we cannot commit to purely training our students to narrow areas that will only benefit particular sects of a particular society.