The Marxist Perspective on Education

Posted on January 27, 2015by Karl Thompson

Traditional Marxists see the education system as working in the interests of ruling
class elites. According to the Marxist perspective on education, the system performs
three functions for these elites:

Reproduces class inequality.

Legitimates class inequality.
It works in the interests of capitalist employers

1. The reproduction of class inequality

In school, the middle classes use their material and cultural capital to ensure that
their children get into the best schools and the top sets. This means that the
wealthier pupils tend to get the best education and then go onto to get middle class
jobs. Meanwhile working class children are more likely to get a poorer standard of
education and end up in working class jobs. In this way class inequality is reproduced

2. The Legitimation of class inequality

Marxists argue that in reality money determines how good an education you get, but
people do not realize this because schools spread the myth of meritocracy in
school we learn that we all have an equal chance to succeed and that our grades
depend on our effort and ability. Thus if we fail, we believe it is our own fault. This
legitimates or justifies the system because we think it is fair when in reality it is not.

3. Teaching the skills future capitalist employers need

In Schooling in Capitalist America (1976) Bowles and Gintis suggest that there is a
correspondence between values learnt at school and the way in which the workplace
operates. The values, they suggested, are taught through the Hidden Curriculum.
The Hidden Curriculum consists of those things that pupils learn through the
experience of attending school rather than the main curriculum subjects taught at
the school. So pupils learn those values that are necessary for them to tow the line in
menial manual jobs, as outlined below

SCHOOL VALUES Corresponds to EXPLOITATIVE LOGIC OF THE WORKPLACE

Passive subservience (of pupils to teachers) corresponds to Passive subservience of

workers to managers

Acceptance of hierarchy (authority of teachers) corresponds to Authority of

managers

Motivation by external rewards (grades not learning) corresponds to being

Motivated by wages not the joy of the job

Evaluations of the Traditional Marxist Perspective on Education

Positive
There is an overwhelming wealth of evidence that schools do reproduce class
inequality because the middle classes do much better in education because they
have more cultural capital (Reay) and because the 1988 Education Act benefited
them (Ball Bowe and Gewirtz)
Conversely, WWC children less likely to go to university because of fear of debt
(Connor et al)
Negative
Henry Giroux, says the theory is too deterministic. He argues that working class
pupils are not entirely molded by the capitalist system, and do not accept
everything that they are taught Paul Willis study of the Lads also suggests this.
Education can actually harm the Bourgeois many left wing, Marxist activists are
university educated

Neo- Marxism: Paul Willis: Learning to Labour (1977)

Willis research involved visiting one school and observing and interviewing 12
working class rebellious boys about their attitude to school during their last 18
months at school and during their first few months at work.

Willis argues pupils rebelling are evidence that not all pupils are brainwashed into
being passive, subordinate people as a result of the hidden curriculum.

Willis therefore criticizes Traditional Marxism. He says that pupils are not directly
injected with the values and norms that benefit the ruling class, some actively reject
these. These pupils also realise that they have no real opportunity to succeed in this
system.

BUT, Willis still believes that this counter-school culture still produces workers who
are easily exploited by their future employers:
The Counter School Culture
Willis described the friendship between these 12 boys (or the lads) as a counter-
school culture. Their value system was opposed to that of the school. This value
system was characterised as follows:

1. The lads felt superior to the teachers and other pupils

2. They attached no value to academic work, more to having a laff
3. The objective of school was to miss as many lessons as possible, the reward for this
was status within the group
4. The time they were at school was spent trying to win control over their time and
make it their own.

Attitudes to future work

They looked forward to paid manual work after leaving school and identified all
non-school activities (smoking, going out) with this adult world, and valued such
activities far more than school work.
The lads believed that manual work was proper work, and the type of jobs that
hard working pupils would get were all the same and generally pointless.
Their counter school culture was also strongly sexist.
Evaluations of Willis
Very small sample of only working class white boys
Overly sympathetic with the boys going native?

Assess the Marxist View of the Role of Education

in Society
Posted on April 2, 2016by Karl Thompson

Assess the Marxist View of the Role of Education in Society

According to Marxists, modern societies are

Capitalist, and are structured along class-lines, and such societies are
divided into two major classes The Bourgeois elite who own and control
the means of production who exploit the Proletariat by extracting surplus
value from them. Traditional Marxists understand the role of education in
this context education is controlled by the elite class (The Bourgeoisie)
and schools forms a central part of the superstructure through which they
maintain ideological control of the proletariat.
Firstly, Louis Altusser argued that state education formed part of
the ideological state apparatus: the government and teachers control
the masses by injecting millions of children with a set of ideas which keep
people unaware of their exploitation and make them easy to control.
According to Althusser, education operates as an ideological state
apparatus in two ways; Firstly, it transmits a general ideology which states
that capitalism is just and reasonable the natural and fairest way of
organising society, and portraying alternative systems as unnatural and
irrational Secondly, schools encourage pupils to passively accept their
future roles, as outlined in the next point
Secondly, the second function schools perform for Capitalism is that they
produce a compliant and obedient workforce
In Schooling in Capitalist America (1976) Bowles and Gintis suggest that
there is a correspondence between values learnt at school and the way in
which the workplace operates. The values, they suggested, are taught
through the Hidden Curriculum, which consists of those things that pupils
learn through the experience of attending school rather than the main
curriculum subjects taught at the school. So pupils learn those values that
are necessary for them to tow the line in menial manual jobs.
For example passive subservience of pupils to teachers corresponds to the
passive subservience of workers to managers; acceptance of hierarchy
(authority of teachers) corresponds to the authority of managers; and finally
there is motivation by external rewards: students are motivated by grades
not learning which corresponds to being motivated by wages, not the joy of
the job.
A third Marxist idea is that schools reproduce class inequality. In school,
the middle classes use their material and cultural capital to ensure that their
children get into the best schools and the top sets. This means that the
wealthier pupils tend to get the best education and then go onto to get
middle class jobs. Meanwhile working class children are more likely to get a
poorer standard of education and end up in working class jobs. In this way
class inequality is reproduced
Fourthly, schools legitimate class inequality. Marxists argue that in reality
class background and money determines how good an education you get,
but people do not realize this because schools spread the myth of
meritocracy in school we learn that we all have an equal chance to
succeed and that our grades depend on our effort and ability. Thus if we
fail, we believe it is our own fault. This legitimates or justifies the system
because we think it is fair when in reality it is not.
Finally, Paul Willis classic study Learning to Labour (1977) criticises
aspects of Traditional Marxist theory.
Willis visited one school and observed 12 working class rebellious boys
about their attitude to school and attitudes to future work. Willis described
the friendship between these 12 boys (or the lads) as a counter-school
culture. They attached no value to academic work, more to having a laff
and that the objective of school was to miss as many lessons as possible.
Willis argued that pupils rebelling are evidence that not all pupils are
brainwashed into being passive, subordinate people as a result of the
hidden curriculum. Willis therefore criticizes Traditional Marxism. These
pupils also realise that they have no real opportunity to succeed in this
system, so they are clearly not under ideological control.
However, the fact that the lads saw manual work as proper work and
placed no value of academic work, they all ended up failing their exams,
and as a result had no choice but to go into low-paid manual work, and the
end result of their active rebellion against the school was still the
reproduction of class inequality. Thus this aspect of Marxism is supported
by Willis work.
Traditional Marxist views of education are extremely dated, even the
the new Neo-Marxist theory of Willis is 40 years old, but how relevant
are they today?
To criticise the idea of the Ideological State Apparatus, Henry Giroux, says
the theory is too deterministic. He argues that working class pupils are not
entirely molded by the capitalist system, and do not accept everything that
they are taught. Also, education can actually harm the Bourgeois many
left wing, Marxist activists are university educated, so clearly they do not
control the whole of the education system.
However, the recent academisation programme, which involves part-
privatisation of state schools suggests support for the idea that Businesses
control some aspects of education.
It is also quite easy to criticise the idea of the correspondence principle
Schools clearly do not inject a sense of passive obedience into todays
students many jobs do not require a passive and obedient workforce, but
require an active and creative workforce.
However, if you look at the worlds largest education system, China, this
could be seen as supporting evidence for the idea of the correspondence
principle at work many of those children will go into manufacturing, as
China is the worlds main manufacturing country in the era of globalisation.
The Marxist Theory of the reproduction of class inequality and its
legitimation through the myth of meritocracy does actually seem to be true
today. There is a persistent correlation between social class background
and educational achievement with the middle classes able to take
advantage of their material and cultural capital to give their children a head
start and then better grades and jobs. It is also the case that children are
not taught about this unfairness in schools, although a small handful do
learn about it in Sociology classes.
In conclusion, while Marxist theory might be dated, all of the four major
ideas still seem to have some relevance, especially their ideas about the
reproduction and legitimation of class inequality, so I would say Marxism is
one of the more accurate perspectives which helps us understand the role
of the education system today, both nationally and globally.

arxist perspective by Sam Cook a former student

Marxs position about the ruling class was they have the power to control the working classes not with

force but with ideas. These ideas justify their dominant position and conceal
the true source of their power along with their exploitation of the subject
class. Remember: Marxism is a belief that capitalism allows the owners of capital (the ruling-class or
bosses) to exploit the workers (employees) and this causes conflict between the two classes (known
as social-class conflict).
In Marxs view this ruling class ideology is far more effective in controlling the subject classes than
physical force, as it is hidden from the consciousness of the subject class this is known as false
consciousness. One example Marxists might use is the role of meritocracy in education to control
the working classes by getting the working classes used to being rewarded for being good and doing
as youre told.
Education and Ideology
Louis Althusser (a Marxist) (1971) argued that the main role of education in a capitalist society was
the reproduction of an efficient and obedient work force. This is achieved through schools:
1. transmitting the ideology that capitalism is just and reasonable (school teaches you to compete
with your fellow pupils by trying to do better than them)
2. train future workers to become submissive to authority (schools teachers you to accept as normal
to do as youre told, this way when your boss orders you what to do, it seems perfectly normal)
Althusser argues that ideology in capitalist society is fundamental to social control and education
is instrumental in transmitting this ideology. He argues education is an ideological state apparatus
which helps pass on ruling class ideology (for example ideology) in order to justify the capitalist
system.
Bowles and Gintiss (Marxists) research Schooling in Capitalist America (1976) supported
Althussers ideas that there is a close correspondence (known as the correspondence principle)
between the social relationships in the classroom and those in the workplace. Through the hidden
curriculum (it is vital you follow the hidden curriculum link). Bowles and Ginitis argue schools
introduce the long shadow of work because schools create a hard-working disciplined workforce
for capitalist societies. This process is essential for social reproduction the reproduction of a new
generation of workers schooled (disciplined) into accepting their role in society. This occurs through:
School and workplace school mirrors the workplace through its hierarchical structures teachers
give orders and pupils obey. Pupils have little control over their work a fact of life in the majority of
jobs. Schools reward punctuality and obedience and are dismissive of independence, critical
awareness and creativity this mirrors the workplace expectations. The hidden curriculum is seen by
Bowles and Gintis as instrumental in this process.
Social inequality schools legitimate the myth that everyone has an equal chance those that work
hard deserve the top jobs, these people deserve their superior rewards (meritocracy). In this way
inequality becomes justified. However Bowles and Gintis argue that rewards in education and
occupation are based not on ability but on social background. The higher a persons class or origin
the more likely they are to attain top qualifications and a top job. See Bourdon (position theory);
Bourdiau (cultural capital) ; and Bernstein ( language and class). For Bowles and Ginitis then, school
can be seen to legitimize social inequality.