Education serves the needs of a capitalist society divided into social classes and serves the needs of capitalism by socialising children into the dominant ideology, leading to an obedient workforce and the stability of capitalism. With the exception of a few individuals education confirms individuals’ class of origin as their class of destination. Education therefore contributes to the reproduction of present class inequalities between generations, and does not provide a means of upward social mobility for most people. Education legitimises social class inequality by persuading working-class individuals to accept that their lack of power and control at work and in society generally is due to their lack of academic ability, effort and achievement.
Bowles & Gintis made a lot of research however their work is poor, and they made assumptions about the existence of the hidden curriculum rather than proving its existence. In addition the formal curriculum of the school does not necessarily reflect an attempt to create a subservient workforce.
An alternative approach is that of Willis. He studied 12 working-class boys over their final year and half at school, and briefly into employment. Willis concluded that the education system does not automatically produce in children the values and gradings in of ability, as claimed by Bowles & Gintis, but that there are a wide variety of responses, one of which was that of the ‘lads’.
There are some criticisms of Willis’ interpretation. The sample of 12 children is very small and may not be appropriate to generalise from. Secondly Willis does not question the boys’ view of the world. In particular, he takes their comments about the other pupils as accurate; but there is evidence of a variety of responses to the schools, not just the two extremes of ‘lads’ and ‘ear’oles’. Finally Willis can be accused of value bias in that he starts from the assumption that the working class are exploited, and that the responses of the boys are responses to capital society.
The Marxist perspective could be criticized because it gives too much emphasis to the role of education in forming students’ identity, and they pay too little attention to the influences of other agencies of socialization. Furthermore they don’t fully consider the ways students react to schooling in ways that aren’t necessarily functional for the social system or capitalism. Lastly they see too tight a link between education and economy, and exaggerate the extent to which schools provide a ready, willing and qualified labour force. The new vocationalism and pressure to drive up school standards was a direct response to employers who criticized schools for not providing a suitably disciplined and qualified labour force.