Roles and Functions of Education » Marxist Perspectives on Education

What you'll learn this session

Study time: 30 minutes

The key principles of Marxist perspectives on education
How education reproduces class inequality according to Marxists
The hidden curriculum and ideological state apparatus
The concepts of correspondence theory and cultural reproduction
Criticisms of Marxist perspectives on education
Real-world examples and case studies

🔒 Unlock Full Course Content

Unlock This Course

Introduction to Marxist Perspectives on Education

Marxist sociologists see education as serving the needs of capitalism and maintaining class inequality. Unlike functionalists who view education as beneficial for society, Marxists argue that education primarily benefits the ruling class (bourgeoisie) while disadvantaging the working class (proletariat).

Key Definitions:

Marxism: A social, political and economic theory based on the ideas of Karl Marx that focuses on class conflict and inequality.
Bourgeoisie: The capitalist class who own the means of production.
Proletariat: The working class who sell their labour to the bourgeoisie.
Capitalism: An economic system based on private ownership and profit-making.
Ideology: A system of ideas and beliefs that justify the power of the ruling class.

📖 Marxist View of Education

Marxists believe education serves capitalism in two main ways:

It produces a workforce with the skills, attitudes and values needed by employers
It socialises young people to accept inequality as normal and inevitable

📝 Key Marxist Thinkers

Important Marxist sociologists who have written about education include:

Louis Althusser
Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis
Pierre Bourdieu
Paul Willis

Reproduction of Class Inequality

According to Marxists, education reproduces and legitimises class inequality from one generation to the next. The education system appears fair and meritocratic, but in reality, it's designed to ensure working-class children mostly fail and middle-class children mostly succeed.

The Hidden Curriculum

The hidden curriculum refers to the unwritten, unofficial and often unintended lessons, values and perspectives that students learn in school. Marxists argue that the hidden curriculum teaches students to:

🛡 Obedience

Students learn to follow rules and respect authority without questioning - preparing them for workplace discipline.

⌚ Punctuality

Being on time for lessons and completing work to deadlines prepares students for the time discipline of paid work.

🏆 Competition

Students learn to compete for rewards and accept that inequality is natural and based on merit.

Althusser: Ideological State Apparatus

Louis Althusser (1971) argued that education is an 'ideological state apparatus' (ISA) that serves capitalism by:

Teaching skills needed for the workplace
Transmitting ruling class ideology that legitimises inequality
Dividing students into different 'streams' based on their future roles in the workforce

According to Althusser, education works alongside other ISAs (like the media, religion and family) to maintain capitalist society. While the police and army use force (repressive state apparatus), education uses ideology to control people.

Case Study Focus: Streaming and Setting

Many UK schools use streaming (placing pupils in different classes for all subjects) or setting (grouping pupils by ability for specific subjects). Marxists argue this reinforces class divisions:

Working-class students are more likely to be placed in lower sets
Higher sets often receive better resources and more experienced teachers
Lower sets may focus on basic skills and discipline rather than critical thinking
This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy where working-class students achieve less

Research by the Education Endowment Foundation (2018) found that setting and streaming has a negative impact on the attainment of disadvantaged pupils.

Bowles and Gintis: Correspondence Theory

American Marxists Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis (1976) developed 'correspondence theory', arguing that education mirrors the workplace. They claimed there's a close match (or correspondence) between:

🏫 School Experience

- Hierarchy (headteacher → teachers → students)
- Rewards for compliance and good work
- Emphasis on following rules
- External motivation (grades, not learning for its own sake)
- Fragmented work (separate subjects, short lessons)

🏢 Workplace Experience

- Hierarchy (managers → supervisors → workers)
- Rewards for compliance and productivity
- Emphasis on following company policies
- External motivation (wages, not job satisfaction)
- Fragmented work (specialised tasks, shifts)

This correspondence prepares students for their future roles in the capitalist economy. Different types of schools prepare students for different types of work - elite private schools develop leadership qualities, while state schools focus on obedience and basic skills.

Bourdieu: Cultural Reproduction

French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu focused on how education reproduces class inequality through culture. He introduced several important concepts:

Cultural capital: Knowledge, language and cultural experiences valued by the education system
Habitus: Dispositions, attitudes and ways of behaving that are shaped by social class
Symbolic violence: The imposition of middle-class culture as the 'legitimate' culture in schools

Bourdieu argued that middle-class children have an advantage because their cultural capital matches what schools value. Working-class children may feel like 'fish out of water' in an education system that doesn't recognise their cultural experiences.

Case Study Focus: Paul Willis - "Learning to Labour"

In his 1977 study, Paul Willis followed a group of working-class boys (the 'lads') in a Midlands school. He found that they developed an anti-school subculture that rejected academic work as 'not masculine' and 'pointless'. By rejecting education, they inadvertently prepared themselves for working-class jobs.

This study shows how working-class students can participate in their own educational failure - what Willis called 'self-damnation'. The 'lads' thought they were resisting the system, but they ended up exactly where the capitalist system needed them: in low-skilled manual jobs.

Criticisms of Marxist Perspectives

While Marxist theories offer powerful insights into education and inequality, they have been criticised for several reasons:

⛔ Determinism

Marxists may underestimate students' and teachers' ability to resist and challenge the system.

🔍 Oversimplification

Not all working-class students fail and not all middle-class students succeed in education.

📅 Outdated

Some argue that education has become more meritocratic since these theories were developed in the 1970s.

Contemporary Relevance

Despite these criticisms, Marxist perspectives remain relevant for understanding education today:

Class inequalities in educational achievement persist in the UK
Free School Meals (FSM) pupils achieve significantly lower grades than non-FSM pupils
Working-class students are less likely to attend university, especially elite institutions
Recent education policies have emphasised discipline, traditional knowledge and preparing students for work

Exam Tip: Evaluation Points

When writing about Marxist perspectives in your exam, remember to include evaluation:

Compare with other perspectives (e.g., functionalism sees education as beneficial for society)
Consider evidence for and against Marxist claims
Discuss whether education reproduces inequality or can challenge it
Think about how education has changed since these theories were developed

🔒 Test Your Knowledge!