Using material from Item A and elsewhere assess the contribution of Marxism to our understanding of the role of education.

Bowles and Gintis argued that capitalism requires a workforce with the kind of attitudes, behaviour and personality-type suited to their role as alienated and exploited workers willing to accept hard work, low pay and orders. They argue there is a close relationship between the classroom and the work force this is often referred to as the correspondence principle in which it almost mirrors work format. It is argued that it operates through the hidden curriculum for example they teach hierarchy and competition and teaches them lack of control as education you are a student at the bottom of the hierarchy battling to achieve while having no control of what they are being taught. They studied a school in America and found that students are rewarded for behaviours which comply with submissiveness and compliance. For example those who show independence and creativity get low grades where as though who are discipline and obedient achieve high grades. They believe education dissuades students from developments and stunts it to be obedient. Due to the poor being abused and exploited there is a high risk of revolt and to overcome this bourgeoisie legitimate the class inequalities and produces false class consciousness through ideologies. They argue that the evidence shows the main factor determining what a person’s achieve is based on the educational achievement. The myth of meritocracy makes it seem the ruling of the higher classes it due to the open and fair competition at school. This helps legitimate the inequality of schools and make revolution unlikely

Willis also argued that capitalism wouldn’t able to function without a workforce that is willing to accept exploitation but Willis didn’t see it as a straightforward process. Willis done a study on 12 ‘lads’ that showed that working class pupils can resist such attempts to be controlled for 6 months while they were in school and 6 months of work. The lads found school meaningless and they did not follow the rules and values of school.  This was the lads form of defiance against the school and society. They reject the meritocratic system. These lads associate themselves with manual work and more masculine work. But the defiant attitude helped them fit their slots in society perfectly through their complete lack of skills. Due to them being used to boredom and amusing themselves they don’t expect much from work and can cope with boring repetitive work. All this helps to legitimate lack of achievement. He is criticised for his study not being representative of all working class pupils and their experiences.

However postmodernists criticise that Bowels and Gintis’ correspondence principle because today’s post-fordist economy needs school’s to produce a different type of workforce than the one described by Marxist. Postmodernist believe that the education system produces more diversity instead of inequality which Marxist believe. Also Marxists have many disagrees within their theory for example Bowles and Gintis assume that students have no free will and passively accept being controlled and indoctrination. This approach only explains those who accept and follow the values and beliefs they are taught through the hidden curriculum but doesn’t explain those who reject the values and beliefs. Whereas Willis combines the Marxist and interactionist approach and shows how pupils resist the school and rejects their values and still end up with a working-class job, this idea contradicts Bowels and Gintis therefore showing the disagreements within Marxist.