Neo-Marxist theory on Education

Paul Willis

Criticises B&G as not all pupils are disciplined by the education system→ workers resist control of employers e.g. strikes

Pupils develop sub-cultures→ documented through w.c boys→ rejected school norms and emphasised toughness over academic achievement

Anti-school culture mirrored factory floor culture, often involving sexism and a lack of respect for authority.

Boys did not see education as a pathway to improve life prospects; they accepted low-skilled jobs without feeling inferior.

Documented behavior of working-class boys who prioritized non-conformity and rejected school norms.

Emphasized toughness and humor over academic achievement

Continuities Between School and Work Observations

• Similarities noted during follow-up visits to workplaces six months after leaving school.

• Continuity of values and attitudes from school life to the workplace, characterized by resistance and conformist elements.

Comparisons with Bowles and Gintis

• Similarities: Both studies recognize the role of education in preparing individuals for labor roles.

• Differences: Willis highlights student agency and resistance, while Bowles and Gintis focus on compliance.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Willis’s Research

• Blackledge and Hunt suggest that Willis’ sample of 12 males was insufficient. 2.

• Willis disregarded the wide variety of subcultures in the school.

• Willis misinterpreted some of the evidence→ boys copied their fathers’ attitude towards work. Some of the fathers were very proud of their work and their good relationships with their managers, whilst their sons rejected everyone who did not belong to their own little world

• Mac an Ghail (94) completed a similar study 20 years later where he found some of the young working class males “the macho lads” were similar to Willis’ lads, rejecting teachers’ authority and values.