The Marxist theory has focused a lot on the analysis of education especially in relation to its roles. Marxism is based on outlining the relationship between people and the economy. It states that peoples existence is defined by the economic state, where the ruling class owns wealth and the workers, who provide the labour in this relationship, are exploited in order to create profit for the ruling class. Marx analysed this relationship and developed the theory of socialism as a solution to this capitalistic existence.
This perspective holds the view that groups within existing societies have fundamentally different interests. This leads to the view that however education is organised in this contemporary society some people will end up benefiting from it more than others.
Socialising young people into key cultural values
Many Marxist theorists have explored this function, however it was Louis Althusser that is recognised at exploring this role in much detail. He argues that education has taken over as the main agency for this ideological control where the church was once used instead. Education is a state apparatus, which is used to promote capitalist (ruling class) values as common values. These values aim to maintain, legitimate and reproduce (generation by generation) class inequalities in wealth and power. Althusser and also the controversial Marxist theorist Ivan Illich looked at the idea of a ‘hidden curriculum’ in schools in relation to transmitting values. They stated that it is used as an informal way of encouraging conformity and acceptance of failure and inequality especially amongst working class kids. Illich stated that schools establish what is called a passive consumption amongst the students (especially working class kids), which passes on an uncritical acceptance of the existing social order. The ‘hidden curriculum’ is said to work in 2 ways: through the knowledge that is taught in schools and also through the way in which schools are organised. Students are rarely taught critical ways of thinking and to challenge inequality, the national curriculum is criticised for being ‘too prescriptive’ purposely-excluding subjects like economics, politics and sociology. The way in which schools are organised was also looked at; everyday rules and routines were concluded as a way in which to transmit different messages to middle and working class kids. Streaming and exams were said to be there to convince working class kids that their knowledge and experiences are irrelevant and to except failure as their fault, this is known as a type of cultural reproduction.
Teaching the skills required by a developing economy
Marxists hold the view that education is not about teaching skills but teaching a ‘good worker’ attitude, especially to the working class kids. Bowles and Gintis were the American Marxists who looked into this theory deeply gaining much of their research through studying schooling in capitalist America. They argued that capitalism requires a subservient workforce that is prepared to accept whatever low skilled and paid jobs that is handed to them. Like Althusser they too looked at the hidden curriculum of schools. Bowles and Gintis stated that there is a correspondence between what goes on in schools and what goes on in factories. The boring routines that are emplaced upon pupils, mirror that of a factory workforce. Also the acceptance of authority and hierarchies that is taught in schools and the motivation from external rewards, good exam results, smile from teacher, reflect that of which goes on in the workplace, bonuses etc.
In 1977 Paul Willis did a case study in Birmingham to analyse cultural reproduction within schools, the aim of his study, in his own words, was to see ‘Why working class kids get working class jobs.’ After studying a group of working class ‘lads’ during there last 1 ½ years of school and their first few months of work he was able to relate their time spent and interaction within the education system to the wider social structure. Willis concluded his study with a link, like Bowles and Gintis, between school and work. However, unlike them he did not find the lads to be the obedient, passive pupils that B + G evaluated. He stated that the lads weren’t shaped by the education system and that the correspondence was produced by their rejection of school. This rejection however paradoxically, prepared them for their low skilled, low status, working class jobs and therefore still fitted in nicely to the ruling class scheme of things.
Marxists are also particularly critical of the new vocationalism and YTS. Phil Cohen argues that these function simply to teach the capitalistic conformist attitude, work discipline and an acceptance of a future of being poor and frequently unemployed. They also argue that the schemes help to legitimise class divisions because they encourage the idea that the working class kids are trained whilst the middle class ones are educated.
Allocating people to the most appropriate job
Marxists argue that education is not a meritocracy and the allocation of jobs is based upon class as appose to ability.
Private education is argued to be one of the biggest tools of the ruling class as well as the selection processes adopted by state grammars and the ‘selection by mortgage’ process, which has been adapted by many comprehensives. As long as these tools exist society will never be meritocratic as they essentially promote a higher standard of education for those able to buy it and a lower standard for the rest, already creating divisions. With the visible link between those attending private schools and top paid jobs it is easy to see that with the advantages such as money and resources the middle class are able to secure themselves societies ‘good’ jobs whereas the working class in essence secure themselves the appropriately lower paid, lower status job that their education has determined for them.
The 3 functions that I have here outlined are the bases to the argument that ‘education is a tool of the ruling class.’ There are however open criticisms of this argument, which come from a wide range of persuasions. Marxism is openly criticised for seeing people as mere creatures, as not all pupils are passive recipients of the dominant ideology. Bowles and Gintis state that teachers are agents of the capital. However, it is seen that a large proportion of teachers are actually radicals who chose teaching to express their ideas. The Marxist theory is also condemned for not producing enough hard evidence to back up the belief that schools shape personality. Finally, it is criticised for being ‘race-blind’ and too economistic.
The Functionalist perspective is essentially the direct alternative to the statement that ‘education is a tool of the working class.’ Functionalism sees society as a set of social institutions, which are interdependent upon one another and perform specific tasks that help to produce stability, order and solidarity. One example of this is the impact of which religious practices have in contributing to the integration and social cohesion of society. Functionalism emphasises the importance of moral consensus, in the maintenance of a stable society. Moral consensus, however, only exists when most people in a society share the same values, which then, it states, creates order and balance as the normal state of society.
Socialising young people into key cultural values
Both Parsons and Durkheim stated that education, especially in contemporary society, serves as an essential agency of socialisation. It transmits common values (generation by generation) that is crucial to the maintenance of social order in society. Parsons in particular argued the point that school was a bridge that acted between the family and the wider society. Its role was to promote universal values i.e. achievement, individualism, competition and equality of opportunity. Durkheim added that the teaching of particular subjects like English, History and religion helped pupils to develop a sense of belonging to their society and therefore help society to run smoothly.
Teaching the skills required by a developing economy
Similarly to Marxists, Fuctionalists draw a link between education and the economy. They believe that as the economy becomes more complex, like it did with industrialisation, new skills and greater technical expertise are required for it to run efficiently. Education must provide a labour force to meet these needs and therefore it is through education that these new skills are learnt. In the 70s however, the new right were convinced that education wasn’t fulfilling it’s role well enough therefore in response to this the Conservative Government developed the ‘new vocationalism.’
Allocating people to the most appropriate job
Functionalists argue that education is a meritocracy. David and Moore state that the role of education is to allocate people to occupations that best suit them ability wise.
They say that educational mechanisms such as grades, exams, references and qualifications are used to sort individuals. This is how they believe that education is a meritocracy in which people are rewarded simply on the bases of intelligence, ability and effort.
Having explored both angles of the statement ‘Education is a tool of the ruling class’ I have come to see that education, like both perspectives believed, teaches learning in a social sense essentially more than it does in a cognitive sense. I agree with the Marxist perspective when stating that education is not a meritocracy. When surrounded by the universal idea, league tables etc, that private, fee paying, schooling is better in the teaching of the curriculum knowledge, which is the knowledge necessary to get the qualifications that are so important in this society and the statistics that more pupils who attend these institutions gain higher paying more powerful jobs, it is hard to believe otherwise. Education has always been selective since its very beginning where it was only open to those with the money to afford it and in sense those with the money, namely not the working class, but the dominant class are still able to buy the best education and therefore secure their place of power where they are able to shapes the society around them and use whatever tools available to them, whether it be education or the religion or the workplace or the government, for whatever means they wish.
References: A Giddens: Sociology, Haralambos and Holborn: Sociology Themes and Perspectives, Letts: AS Sociology, N.Abercrombie: Dictionary of Sociology (Penguin), Ivan Reid: Sociological Perspectives on School + Education
