The Marxist View of Education (AQA A Level Sociology): Revision Note

Marxist view of education

• Marxists take a conflict view of education

• Unlike functionalists, who see education as promoting value consensus and social solidarity, Marxists argue that education serves the interests of capitalism and the ruling class (bourgeoisie)

• They believe the education system:

  • reproduces class inequality by ensuring working-class students are less likely to achieve high qualifications

  • legitimises inequality by promoting the idea that success is based on merit while ignoring structural advantages

  • prepares working-class students to accept their future low-paid, subordinate roles in capitalist society through the hidden curriculum (opens in a new tab) and everyday school practices (e.g., discipline, routine, hierarchy)

The myth of meritocracy

• Marxists argue meritocracy is a myth that serves capitalism by:

  • making inequality seem fair: it convinces students that failure is due to lack of effort or talent, not class background

  • blaming individuals, not the capitalist system, for inequality

  • preventing the working class from challenging their low-status position in society

Louis Althusser (1971): Education as ideological state apparatus

• Althusser argued that education is a key ideological state apparatus (ISA) used by the state to maintain ruling class dominance

• According to Althusser, education performs two key functions:

  • Reproduces class inequality across generations by funnelling working-class students into lower-status roles and giving middle-class students an advantage through access to economic and cultural capital

  • Legitimises inequality by promoting the myth of meritocracy, persuading students that failure is their fault rather than a result of an unequal system

• Additionally, through the hidden curriculum, schools teach acceptance of capitalist values like obedience, competition, and hierarchy

  • This lowers the aspirations of working-class pupils while preparing elite students for positions of power

Bowles & Gintis (1976): Schooling in capitalist America

• American Marxists Bowles and Gintis carried out primary research on 237 New York high school students using education surveys

• They also used secondary sources by drawing upon existing sociological and economic theories

• They found that:

  • schools rewarded students with characteristics such as being hard-working, disciplined, obedient and unquestioning of authority

  • students demonstrating greater independence and creative thinking were more likely to gain lower grades

  • schools were producing an unimaginative and unquestioning workforce susceptible to alienation and exploitation

• They concluded that the key role of the education system was to create and reproduce an obedient workforce that capitalism needs, and this is reflected in how schooling is structured and the hidden curriculum

The correspondence principle

• Bowles and Gintis used the term 'correspondence principle' to describe the way education and the workplace mirror or correspond with one another:

  The education system's hidden curriculum	The workplace
  A rigid hierarchy of authority exists among teachers (headteacher, deputy and classroom teacher) and between teachers and students who obey orders.	There is a rigid hierarchy where a CEO is at the top and different levels of managers below who make decisions and give orders. Workers are at the bottom of the hierarchy.
  Schools breed competition and division among students through tests, exams, grades, sports, and head student positions. Students learn to accept such values, which prepare them for the workplace.	There is competition and division in the workplace for promotions, higher pay and differences in status. Competition helps to maintain capitalism.
  The curriculum is fragmented into different subjects, and knowledge is broken down into isolated chunks, which may not relate to one another.	Jobs are very specific and broken down into separate tasks. Employees do their tasks with very little knowledge of what the overall process involves in creating products.
  The school day consists of mundane and boring tasks over which students have little power, causing alienation.	Certain jobs consist of tedious and unfulfilling tasks over which adults exert little control, causing alienation.
  Students learn to be motivated by external rewards, such as exam results, rather than gaining intrinsic satisfaction from what they are learning.	Work may not be intrinsically satisfying, so motivation stems from the external rewards of pay and bonuses.
  Students learn discipline and have no control over what is taught.	Workers who are ill-disciplined are sacked. Workers have no control over what is made.

Willis (1977): Learning to labour

• Willis (1977) writes from a neo-Marxist perspective on how schools prepare children for the workplace

• He agrees with the Marxist view that there is a relationship between education and capitalism, but he thinks that students actively oppose the values of the ruling class through a counter-school subculture rather than passively accepting them

Method

• Willis took an interactionist approach to his research of a single-sex secondary school on a council estate in the Midlands, as he:

  • used observations and participant observations in class and around the school

  • recorded group discussions

  • carried out unstructured interviews and used diaries

• Willis focused on a group of 12 working-class boys (whom he called 'the lads') during their last 18 months at school and their first six months at work doing jobs like fitting tyres and laying carpets

• He explored the interaction between teachers and students at school and how the boys made sense of their experiences

Findings & conclusions

• The 'lads' actively rejected school authority and formed a counter-school culture valuing disruption, rebellion, and manual labour

• Although rejecting school values, their rebellion ironically prepared them for low-skilled work by equipping them with attitudes suited to unskilled labour

• Willis showed that students are not passive victims but actively shape their destinies, even if this reinforces capitalism unintentionally

• In this way, the class structure is reproduced over time

Evaluation of the Marxist view of education

Strengths

• Reproduction of inequality

  • Highlights how education reproduces social class inequalities and supports capitalist structures

• Critique of meritocracy

  • Challenges the notion of education as neutral or purely meritocratic by exposing hidden inequalities and ideological functions that advantage dominant groups

• Empirical evidence

  • Provides empirical evidence, e.g., Bowles and Gintis’ correspondence principle and Willis’s study

  • This shows how schools prepare students for capitalist workplaces, giving concrete support to theoretical claims

Criticisms

• Social democratic critique

  • Contends that Marxist approaches ignore the impact of educational reforms that have improved opportunities for working-class students

  • E.g., Education Maintenance Allowance, comprehensive schooling, scholarships

• New Right critique

  • Claims Marxists ignore that some people are naturally more talented than others

  • E.g., Saunders (1996) argues that middle-class achievement stems from genetic advantages rather than systemic exploitation

• Postmodernist critique

  • Suggests Marxism oversimplifies class inequality and neglects contemporary diversity in identities (gender, ethnicity, sexuality, individualism)

  • In a postmodern context, education shapes multiple, fluid identities beyond rigid class roles, reducing the explanatory power of Marxist explanations

• Feminist critique

  • Feminists argue that Bowles and Gintis' and Willis' research ignore the view that schools reproduce not only capitalism but patriarchy too

  • The education system continues to marginalise and oppress women