Test Your Knowledge Flash Cards 🔒Play Lemonaire 🔒Play Last Stand

Theories of Education » The Marxist View of Education

What you'll learn this session

Study time: 30 minutes

Cambridge spec: 5.2.2

How Marxists say education passes class inequality from one generation to the next
Bowles and Gintis' correspondence principle, cultural capital and the myth of meritocracy
How material factors and setting by ability can disadvantage working-class pupils
The strengths and limitations of the Marxist view

🔒 Unlock Full Course Content

Unlock This Course

Education as a tool of the ruling class

Marxists argue schools like this reproduce class inequality, preparing working-class pupils to accept their place

Functionalists see education as fair and good for everyone. Marxists disagree. They say the education system works for the benefit of the bourgeoisie, the small group who own the businesses and the wealth. Its main job, in their view, is the reproduction of class inequality: working-class children mostly end up in working-class jobs, and middle-class children mostly end up in middle-class jobs, generation after generation.

Remember, Marxists see society as a conflict between social classes. Schools are one more place where that conflict is hidden behind a fair-looking system.

Key terms:

Correspondence principle: the idea (Bowles and Gintis) that school life corresponds to, or matches, life in the workplace, so pupils are prepared to accept their place in a capitalist economy.
Cultural capital: the knowledge, language, attitudes and tastes of a social group that give its children an advantage in education. Bourdieu argued that middle-class families have more of it.
Myth of meritocracy: the false belief that everyone has an equal chance to succeed in school and that success comes only from talent and effort.

Socialisation and social control

For Marxists, schools socialise pupils into accepting the capitalist system. They teach children to obey rules, follow orders and take their place without complaint. This is capitalist ideological control: pupils learn to see inequality as normal and fair, so they do not challenge it.

The correspondence principle

Bowles and Gintis said the hidden curriculum prepares pupils for work. They pointed to these matches between school and the workplace:

Pupils obey teachers, just as workers obey managers.
Pupils are rewarded with grades and stars, just as workers are rewarded with wages.
Pupils are told when to move, when to stop and when to start, just as workers follow a timetable.
Lessons are split into separate short subjects, so pupils get used to doing small tasks without seeing the whole picture.

The result is a workforce that turns up on time, follows instructions and does not question the bosses. That is exactly what employers want.

The hidden curriculum and middle-class culture

Earlier you met the hidden and official curriculum. Marxists use the hidden curriculum as evidence of control: pupils learn obedience, punctuality and respect for authority without anyone saying so.

They add that schools are built on middle-class culture. The language teachers use, the books pupils study and the way pupils are expected to speak and behave all fit middle-class homes best. Bourdieu said this gives middle-class children cultural capital.

🏫 Middle-class child

Grows up with many books, trips to museums and conversations that use the same kind of language as teachers. School feels familiar, so they settle quickly and are praised.

💼 Working-class child

May have a different way of speaking and different experiences. School can feel unfamiliar, and the child may be seen as less able, even when they are just as clever.

The myth of meritocracy

Schools say that anyone can do well if they work hard. Marxists call this the myth of meritocracy. The system looks fair because everyone sits the same exams, but pupils do not start from the same place. Cultural capital and money give some pupils a head start.

The myth is useful to the bourgeoisie. If pupils believe results are fair, then working-class pupils who fail blame themselves, not the system. They accept low-paid jobs as what they deserve.

Material factors and setting by ability

No laptop, no quiet desk: material factors like these can hold poorer pupils back, whatever their ability

Material factors are about money and resources. A pupil from a poorer family may have no quiet place to study, no personal computer and a slow or shared internet connection. Today, access to digital technology matters: pupils with a laptop and good broadband can research, practise and submit work more easily than pupils who rely on one shared phone.

Setting by ability means placing pupils in groups by their test results. Marxists argue that middle-class pupils, with more cultural capital, tend to do better in early tests and end up in the top sets. Working-class pupils are more often placed in lower sets, where they may get less demanding work and lower expectations. This then matches their results to the jobs they are expected to do later, so inequality is reproduced and looks fair.

Strengths and limitations of the Marxist view

✅ Strengths

It explains why pupils from poorer families do less well in many countries.
It shows that a system that looks fair may hide unequal starting points.
It draws attention to the hidden curriculum and to cultural capital.
It reminds us that schools serve the needs of the economy.

❌ Limitations

It is deterministic: it suggests that working-class pupils cannot succeed, yet many do.
It treats pupils as passive. Many pupils question teachers and reject school rules.
It focuses on social class and gives less attention to gender and ethnicity.
Functionalists say school also teaches useful skills and offers real chances to move up.

Common mistakes

Writing that Marxists say working-class children are not clever. They say the system is unfair, not the children. Another mistake is to describe cultural capital as money. It is about knowledge, language and tastes, not wealth. Finally, do not just describe the view: always say what it shows about reproducing class inequality.

Exam-style question

(a) Define the term cultural capital. [2 marks]

(b) Explain three ways in which, according to Marxists, education reproduces class inequality. [6 marks]

Model answer

(a) Cultural capital is the knowledge, language, attitudes and tastes of a social group (1) that give children from that group an advantage in education, usually middle-class children (1).

(b) First, the correspondence principle: school prepares pupils for work by teaching them to obey rules and accept authority, so working-class pupils are ready to take orders from bosses (1+1). Second, schools favour middle-class culture, so children with more cultural capital are praised and do better, while working-class children are seen as less able (1+1). Third, the myth of meritocracy: pupils believe results are fair, so those who fail blame themselves and accept low-paid work instead of challenging the system (1+1).

Exam tip

For a "three ways" question, use three clear paragraphs. Name the idea, then add one linked sentence that says how it reproduces class inequality. That second sentence earns the second mark.

Test Your Knowledge