Marxists see schooling in a negative light. It transmits ruling class ideology and produces a passive and compliant workforce which fits the needs of capitalism. When young individuals vigorously reject education, this can prepare them for dull and repetitive low-skill jobs. This vision of the role of education is based to a certain extent on the belief that capitalism is unfair and oppressive, and that it exploits the workforce. Though, it is possible to accept some of the findings of Marxist sociologists without accepting their view of capitalism. Both Bowles and Gintis and Willis provide evidence to hold up their claims. Schools do reward hard work, conformity and obedience. And some students who learn to live with what they see as the boredom of school are prepared for the monotony of low-skill jobs.
Bowles and Gintis who are Marxist sociologists say that there is a close relationship between the interactions in the classroom to those in the workplace. The education system provides the capitalists with a workforce, which has the features (personality, attitudes and values) that are most useful to them. If capitalism is to survive, it requires a solid working, docile, dutiful and extremely motivated workforce. The education system achieves this through the hidden curriculum. This refers to those things that pupils gain knowledge of through their experience of attending school, rather than the formal or official curriculum (punctuality, manners, boredom etc).
They state that the education system produces a subservient workforce. They found that the grades students achieved related more to personality qualities than educational ability. Low grades were related to creativity aggressiveness and independence, while high grades were related to determination consistency, reliability and punctuality. They reject the functionalist view that those who get high qualifications and jobs do so because of their social background and because they do what they are told and work hard.
Bowles and Gintis also claim that the hidden curriculum encourages acceptance of hierarchy. Schools are organised on the hierarchical principle of authority and control. This prepares them for relationships within the workplace. Teachers are the ones who give the orders; students are then expected to obey. This relates to their later experience of lack of control in the workplace.
They state that pupils learn to be motivated by external rewards for example, educational qualifications. This corresponds with the workplace, workers are motivated by external rewards, a salary or wage. If the capitalists are to keep making profit they need a motivated workforce that is eager to earn a wage. They also note the fragmentation of the curriculum. This aspect of education corresponds to the fragmentation of the workforce. Bowles and Gintis believe that most jobs in factories and offices have been broken down into very specific tasks carried out by separate individuals; workers are therefore denied knowledge of the overall productive process. This therefore means that they will not have the knowledge of how to set up a rival company. In addition a fragmented and divided workforce is much easier to control.
Bowles and Gintis reject the view that capitalist societies are open and meritocratic. They state that class background is the most important factor influencing levels of attainment. Meritocracy is a myth. They state that the education system is a giant myth-making machine. It creates the myth that those at the top deserve their power and privilege, that they have achieved their status on merit, and that those at the bottom have only themselves to blame.
Some sociologists criticise the views of Bowles and Gintis. Hickox being one of them. He states that the capitalists had workers that did what they were told and this was not due to the education system as there wasn’t one (1800- 1870). The education system was set up after industrialisation. Another sociologists; Philip Brown argues that education used to produce sorts of behaviour and personality required by capitalist employers, though this is no longer the case for example, teamwork is important in the economy. Not all pupils are indoctrinated by the hidden curriculum. Many pupils break school rules, in one of Willis’ studies he found that the working class boys behaved in a way that definitely would not encourage them to be passive workers. Bowles and Gintis ignore the formal curriculum. This is significant in that some of the subjects taught in schools do not encourage uncritical passive behaviour, sometimes the reverse (e.g. communications, law, government and politics etc). Reynolds suggests that Bowles and Gintis fail to sufficiently explain how the economy shapes the education system. He suggests it is not possible for British capitalists to control education as such. Teachers’ control to a large extent what occurs in classrooms; they may have quite fundamental ideas. They are not mere capitalist puppets.
Bowles and Gintis developed their theory in the 1970’s. It is yet still relevant today. The government was responsible for introducing a National Curriculum. This means they have increased control over what occurs in the classroom. Overall, the curriculum has become more openly designed to meet the needs of the economy.
