The hidden curriculum goes beyond this and also suggests an acceptance of inequality and that some students are brighter than others, preparing them to accept this view in society too. Whether this is factually true or not is almost irrelevant as children such as “The Lads” in Item B believe it to be so, thus condemning themselves to their own subculture where not working in class becomes the norm, and inevitably, as suggested by Paul Willis’ study, a future of working on factory floors. In the past, this would benefit the ruling class as suggested by Marxists because there would always be people working in the factories in some form of acceptance allowing the ruling class to work in the ‘better’ jobs. Without people operating the means of production, there would be no one for the ruling class to oversee. However times are changing, and factory jobs are rarer now. This creates a problem because if indeed children learn that their destiny is to be in this role, there are no longer enough jobs to support it. Furthermore, one could argue that the ruling class no longer have anything to rule over per se which suggests a change in how society must be viewed.
Bowles and Gintis go beyond the hidden curriculum and have suggested a correspondence theory whereby meritocracy is seen to be a myth and that the education system works against the interests of the working class. There is arguably some merit to this as our education system, unlike that seen in mainland Europe for example, does little to support vocational education for those children who may not be so academically inclined. So there is a definite gap as a result of this which helps to create the ruling class as those who succeed academically in our system, leaving the rest to fit in around them (or below them according to hierarchies). Further to this, Bowles & Gintis suggest a correspondence between our schools and the world of work in a similar way to the hidden curriculum, but they do also say that those conforming to the system in school are able to rise above it and themselves become part of the ‘ruling class’.
The ultimate idea of these two concepts, as seen by Marxists, is to produce a subservient workforce for the ruling class to effectively rule over. Indeed, if it all were true in practise then the education system arguably would greatly benefit the perceived ruling class.
One of the main criticisms of this idea however is that it suggests students are passive recipients of the things learnt in school aside from the official curriculum, that everything we do is pre-destined. If we truly have no say, then why are we encouraged to be critical? In addition, one could assume that the Marxists see the ruling class as being those primarily who make it to university, and there is a growing trend toward widening access to higher educational institutions allowing people to cross the divide as the Marxists might define it - people who, whilst at school, might have been “having a laff” in class now have the opportunity if they so desire to return to education later in life providing they have the motivation and willpower.
This suggests that whilst we might be passive in schools, and that through hierarchies and acceptance of inequality we learn certain values which are common in today’s society, it doesn’t mean we necessarily become the person we are in school. The idea of a subservient workforce being created by our education system is in part supported by the likes of “The Lads”, but that doesn’t mean to say it will become the destiny for these subcultures forever. Following on from this, it can be said that education does benefit the ruling class according to Marxism, but the question has to be whether or not we do indeed have such definition between the supposed ruling class and those ‘below’ them anymore, or at least to the same extent as when Althusser, Bowles & Gintis proposed their ideas.