marxist view meritocracy education

Marxist Perspective on Education

Charlotte Nickerson

Research Assistant at Harvard University

Undergraduate at Harvard University

Charlotte Nickerson is a student at Harvard University obsessed with the intersection of mental health, productivity, and design.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Key Takeaways

• Marx and Engels themselves wrote little about education. Nonetheless, there is a long history of Marxists who have argued that education can both enforce and undermine capitalism.
• Sociologists Bowes and Gintis argue that education serves three main purposes: the reproduction of class inequality, its legitimization, and the creation of a compliant capitalist workforce.
• Althusser and his successor, Bordieu, believed that education served to benefit the ruling class both by spreading capitalist ideology and transmitting cultural capital, giving more legitimacy to those in the know.
• Critics have pointed out that those “exploited” by the education system are aware of their status, and do not blindly accept the values of educational institutions.

Marxist Views on Education

Although Marx and Engels wrote little on education, Marxism has educational implications that have been dissected by many. In essence, Marxists believe that education can both reproduce capitalism and have the potential to undermine it.

However, in the current system, education works mainly to maintain capitalism and reproduce social inequality (Cole, 2019).

According to Marx and Engels, the transformation of society will come about through class struggle and actions — such as the actions that the working-class proletariat can take to disempower the ruling bourgeoisie.

Marx and Engels emphasize the role of the spread of “enlightened” opinion throughout society as a way of creating class change.

Nonetheless, Marx and Engels both believed that fostering a full knowledge of what conditions under and what it would mean to overthrow capitalism was necessary to enact basic structural change.

Marx believed that the bourgeoisie failed to offer a real education; instead, education is used to spread bourgeois morals (Marx, 1847). Marx and Engles also, however, believed that workers are educated by doing labor and that education in schools should even be combined with labor.

The theorists felt that this combination of education with labor would increase awareness of the exploitative nature of capitalism.

Marxists were interested in two related issues regarding education under capitalism: firstly, how and to what extent education reproduces capitalism, and, secondly, the ways in which education in capitalist societies could undermine capitalism.

Bowes and Gintes (1976)

Bowes and Gintes (1976) were the two sociologists most associated with the Traditional Marxist perspective in education.

In the view of Marxist, educational systems in capitalist systems perform three functions of the elite, or bourgeoisie class: reproducing class inequality, legitimizing class inequality, and working in the interests of capitalist employers.

The Reproduction of Class Inequality

The process of reproducing class inequality works like this: Middle-class parents use their cultural and material capital to ensure that their children get into the best schools and then go on to achieve highly in those schools.

This can happen through giving children one-on-one instruction with tutors, paying for private school tuition, or, in extreme cases, making donations directly to elite schools that they want their children to attend.

All of this capital meandering means wealthier students tend to get the best education and then go on to get jobs in the middle class.

Meanwhile, working-class children, who are more likely to get a poor education, are funneled into working-class jobs.

The Legitimization of Class Inequality

Marxists argue that, while in reality money determines the quality of one”s education, schools spread a “myth of meritocracy” to convince students that they all have an equal chance of success and that one”s grade simply depends on their effort and ability.

Thus, if a student fails, it is their fault.

This has the net effect of controlling the working classes. Believing that they had a fair chance, the proletariat became less likely to rebel and attempt to change society through a Marxist revolutionary movement (Thompson, 2016).

Bowes and Gintis explain this concept through the idea that students in the capitalist education system are alienated by their labor. Students have a lack of control over their education and their course content.

School motivates, instead, by creating a system of grades and other external rewards. This creates often destructive competition among students who compete to achieve the best grades in what is seen, at least superficially, as a meritocratic system.

Reproduction and legitimization of social inequality – Althusser

Althusser saw himself as building on the conditions that Marx theorized necessary for capitalist production through emphasizing the role of ideology in the social relationships that permeate people’s lives.

He believed that all institutions, schools included, drilled the values of capitalism into pupils, perpetuating the economic system. In this way, he considered education to be part of the “ideological state apparatus.”

Althusser says this influence perpetrates education in multiple ways. This ideological state apparatus, according to Althusser, worked by injecting students with ideas that keep people unaware of their exploitation and make them easy to control.

Secondly, he believed that this injection of ideas produces complaints and an unquestioning workforce, passively accepting their roles (Ferguson, 2018).

Althusser’s successor, Pierre Bordieu (1971) also believed that the education system and other cultural institutions and practices indirectly benefited the bourgeoisie — the capital class — through passing down “cultural capital.”

Cultural capital is the accumulation of knowledge, behaviors, and skills that someone can use to demonstrate their competence and social status, allowing them to wield influence.

Working in The Interests of Capitalist Employers

Finally, Bowes and Gintis (1976) suggested that there is a correspondence between the values taught by schools and the ways in which the workplace operates.

They suggest that these values are taught through a so-called hidden curriculum , which consists of the things that students learn through the experience of attending school rather than the main curriculum thoughts at the school.

Some parallels between the values taught at school and those used to exploit workers in the workplace include:

The passive subservience of pupils to teachers, which corresponds to the passive subservience of workers to managers;

An acceptance of hierarchy – the authority of teachers and administrators over students — corresponding to the authority of managers over employees;

Motivation by external rewards (such as grades over learning), which corresponds to workers being motivated by wages rather than the job of a job.

Correspondence Principle

The Key concept in Bowes and Gintis’ Schooling in Capitalist America (1976) is that the reproduction of the social relations of production is facilitated and illustrated by the similarities between how social relations in education and in production work.

In order to reproduce the social relations of production, the education system must try to teach people to be properly subordinate and render them sufficiently confused that they are unable to gather together and take control of their material existence — such as through seizing the means of production.

Specifically, Bowes and Gintis (1976) argued, the education system helps develop everything from a student”s personal demeanor to their modes of self-presentation, self-image, and social-class identifications which are crucial to being seen as competent and hirable to future employers.

In particular, the social relations of education — the relationships between administrators and teachers, teachers and students, students and students, and students and their work — replicate a hierarchical division of labor. This means that there is a clear hierarchy of power from administrators to teachers to students.

The Myth of Meritocracy

One such aspect of the capitalist education system, according to Bowes and Gintis, is the “myth of meritocracy “.

While Marxists argue that class background and money determine how good of an education people get, the myth of meritocracy posits that everyone has an equal chance at success. Grades depend on effort and ability, and people’s failures are wholly their fault.

This casts a perception of a fair education system when, in reality, the system — and who succeeds or fails in it — is deeply rooted in class (Thompson, 2016).

Criticisms of the Marxist Perspective on Education

The Marxist perspectives on education have been criticized for several reasons.

The traditional Marxist perspective on education has been evaluated both positively and negative. On the affirmative side, there is a wealth of evidence that schools reproduce class inequality.

In particular, evidence suggests that those from the middle and upper classes do much better in education because the working classes are more likely to suffer from material and cultural deprivation. Meanwhile, the middle classes have high material and cultural capital, along with laws that directly benefit them.

Another point in favor of the Marxist view of education is the existence of private schools. In these schools, the very wealthiest families can buy a better education for their families. This gives their children a substantially greater chance of attending an elite university.

There is also strong evidence for the reproduction of class inequality in elite jobs, such as medicine, law, and journalism. A disproportionately high number of people in these professions were educated in private institutions and come from families who are, in turn, highly educated (Thompson, 2016).

On the other hand, sociologists such as Henry Giroux (1983) have criticized the traditional Marxist view on education as being too deterministic. He argued that working classes are not entirely molded by the capitalist system and do not accept everything they are taught blindly. Paul Willis’ study of the working-class “lads” is one example of lower-class youths actively rejecting the values taught by education.

There is also less evidence that pupils believe school is fair than evidence that pupils believe school is unfair. The “Lads” that Paul Willis studied (2017) were well aware that the educational system was biased toward the middle classes, and many people in poorly-funded schools know that they are receiving a lesser quality of education than those in private schools.

• The Functionalist Perspective of Education

Bourdieu, P., & Bordieu, P. (1971). Formes et degrés de la conscience du chômage dans l”Algérie coloniale. Manpower and Unemployment Research in Africa , 36-44.

Bowes, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in Captalist America.

Cole, M. (2019). Theresa May, the hostile environment and public pedagogies of hate and threat: The case for a future without borders . Routledge.

Ferguson, S. (2018). Social reproduction: what’s the big idea? Giroux, H. (1983). Theories of reproduction and resistance in the new sociology of education: A critical analysis. Harvard Educational Review, 53 (3), 257-293.

Giroux, H. (1983). Theories of reproduction and resistance in the new sociology of education: A critical analysis.  Harvard Educational Review ,  53 (3), 257-293.

Marx, K., Engels, F. (1847). Manifesto of the communist party .

Thompson, M. (2016). Assess the Marxist View of the Role of Education in Society .

Willis, P. (2017). Learning to labour: How working class kids get working class jobs . Routledge.

Related Articles

Latour’s Actor Network Theory

Cultural Lag: 10 Examples & Easy Definition

Value Free in Sociology

Cultural Capital Theory Of Pierre Bourdieu

Pierre Bourdieu & Habitus (Sociology): Definition & Examples

Two-Step Flow Theory Of Media Communication

ReviseSociology

A level sociology revision – education, families, research methods, crime and deviance and more!

Evaluate the Marxist View of the Role of Education in Society

An essay evaluating the Marxist view of education covering ideological state apparatus, correspondence principle, the reproduction and legitimation of class inequality.

Last Updated on November 18, 2022 by Karl Thompson

According to Marxists, modern societies are capitalist, and are structured along class-lines, and such societies are divided into two major classes – The Bourgeois elite who own and control the means of production who exploit the Proletariat by extracting surplus value from them.

Traditional Marxists understand the role of education in this context – education is controlled by the elite class (The Bourgeoisie) and schools forms a central part of the superstructure through which they maintain ideological control of the proletariat.

Education has four main roles in society according to Marxists:

• acting as the state apparatus
• producing an obedient workforce
• the reproduction of class inequality
• the legitimation of class inequality.

Louis Althusser argued that state education formed part of the ‘ ideological state apparatus ‘: the government and teachers control the masses by injecting millions of children with a set of ideas which keep people unaware of their exploitation and make them easy to control.

According to Althusser, education operates as an ideological state apparatus in two ways; Firstly, it transmits a general ideology which states that capitalism is just and reasonable – the natural and fairest way of organising society, and portraying alternative systems as unnatural and irrational Secondly, schools encourage pupils to passively accept their future roles, as outlined in the next point…

The second function schools perform for Capitalism is that they produce a compliant and obedient workforce…

In ‘Schooling in Capitalist America’ (1976) Bowles and Gintis suggest that there is a correspondence between values learnt at school and the way in which the workplace operates. The values, they suggested, are taught through the ‘Hidden Curriculum’, which consists of those things that pupils learn through the experience of attending school rather than the main curriculum subjects taught at the school. So pupils learn those values that are necessary for them to tow the line in menial manual jobs.

For example passive subservience of pupils to teachers corresponds to the passive subservience of workers to managers; acceptance of hierarchy (authority of teachers) corresponds to the authority of managers; and finally there is ‘motivation by external rewards: students are motivated by grades not learning which corresponds to being motivated by wages, not the joy of the job.

Marxists also argue that schools reproduce class inequality . In school, the middle classes use their material and cultural capital to ensure that their children get into the best schools and the top sets. This means that the wealthier pupils tend to get the best education and then go onto to get middle class jobs. Meanwhile working class children are more likely to get a poorer standard of education and end up in working class jobs. In this way class inequality is reproduced

Fourthly, schools legitimate class inequality . Marxists argue that in reality class background and money determines how good an education you get, but people do not realize this because schools spread the ‘myth of meritocracy’ – in school we learn that we all have an equal chance to succeed and that our grades depend on our effort and ability. Thus if we fail, we believe it is our own fault. This legitimates or justifies the system because we think it is fair when in reality it is not.

Finally , Paul Willi’s classic study Learning to Labour (1977) criticises aspects of Traditional Marxist theory.

Willis’ visited one school and observed 12 working class rebellious boys about their attitude to school and attitudes to future work. Willis described the friendship between these 12 boys (or the lads) as a counter-school culture. They attached no value to academic work, more to ‘having a laff’ and that the objective of school was to miss as many lessons as possible.

Willis argued that pupils rebelling are evidence that not all pupils are brainwashed into being passive, subordinate people as a result of the hidden curriculum. Willis therefore criticizes Traditional Marxism. These pupils also realise that they have no real opportunity to succeed in this system, so they are clearly not under ideological control.

However, the fact that the lads saw manual work as ‘proper work’ and placed no value of academic work, they all ended up failing their exams, and as a result had no choice but to go into low-paid manual work, and the end result of their active rebellion against the school was still the reproduction of class inequality. Thus this aspect of Marxism is supported by Willis’ work.

Evaluating the Marxist Perspective on Education

Traditional Marxist views of education are extremely dated, even the the new ‘Neo-Marxist’ theory of Willis is 40 years old, but how relevant are they today?

To criticise the idea of the Ideological State Apparatus, Henry Giroux, says the theory is too deterministic. He argues that working class pupils are not entirely molded by the capitalist system, and do not accept everything that they are taught. Also, education can actually harm the Bourgeois – many left wing, Marxist activists are university educated, so clearly they do not control the whole of the education system.

However, the recent academisation programme, which involves part-privatisation of state schools suggests support for the idea that Businesses control some aspects of education.

It is also quite easy to criticise the idea of the correspondence principle – Schools clearly do not inject a sense of passive obedience into today’s students – many jobs do not require a passive and obedient workforce, but require an active and creative workforce.

However, if you look at the world’s largest education system, China, this could be seen as supporting evidence for the idea of the correspondence principle at work – many of those children will go into manufacturing, as China is the world’s main manufacturing country in the era of globalisation.

The Marxist Theory of the reproduction of class inequality and its legitimation through the myth of meritocracy does actually seem to be true today. There is a persistent correlation between social class background and educational achievement – with the middle classes able to take advantage of their material and cultural capital to give their children a head start and then better grades and jobs. It is also the case that children are not taught about this unfairness in schools, although a small handful do learn about it in Sociology classes.

In conclusion , while Marxist theory might be dated, all of the four major ideas still seem to have some relevance, especially their ideas about the reproduction and legitimation of class inequality, so I would say Marxism is one of the more accurate perspectives which helps us understand the role of the education system today, both nationally and globally.

Signposting and Related Posts

This essay was written as a top band answer for a 30 mark question which might appear in the education section of the AQA’s A-level sociology 7192/1 exam paper: Education with Theory and Methods.

For more essay plans please see this main post of links….. ‘ sociology revision and exam advice ‘… all tailored towards AQA A level sociology.

You can find more essay advice on my essays and exam page !

The full knowledge post relevant to the above essay is here:

The Marxist Perspective on the Role of Education in Society

Please click here to return to the homepage – ReviseSociology.com

Share this:

• Share on Tumblr

4 thoughts on “Evaluate the Marxist View of the Role of Education in Society”

• Pingback: What Is the Role of Education in the Society? A Marxist Perspective! - Learningneverstops
• Pingback: Perspectives on the Role of Education – Knowledge Check- List – ReviseSociology
• Pingback: The Marxist Perspective on Education | ReviseSociology
• Pingback: Evaluating the Marxist Perspective on Education | ReviseSociology

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Discover more from ReviseSociology

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

IMR Index | Main Newspaper Index Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive

Irish Marxist Review , November 2012

Tina macveigh, can a meritocratic education system deliver equality.

From Irish Marxists Review , Vol. 1 No. 4 , November 2012, pp. 27–36. Copyright © Irish Marxist Review. A PDF of this article is available here . Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL) .

In Ireland, it is more difficult for the child of an unskilled manual labourer to reach university than it is in other European countries despite the existence of free primary school education which is, in theory, available to all. [1] As everyone has access to education, the prevailing assumption is that innate talent and ability, combined with effort, will yield positive educational outcomes. Those who achieve the highest educational attainment are rewarded with status and higher incomes in adult life. This is described as a ‘functionalist meritocracy’ where positions of status in the labour market, and attendant wealth, are rewarded on the basis of merit. However, this view atomises the individual on the basis of personal characteristics, ignoring their relationship to the social and economic institutions and structures that stratify society along class lines.

Tracing the historical development of the education system in Ireland documents the emergence of a highly centralised and standardised system. A highly competitive and individualistic emphasis is placed on pupil progression in the classical humanist tradition, while the assessment methodologies used for progression through the system are based on the belief that the ‘intelligent’ and ‘hardworking’ succeed in school. [2] This high degree of centralisation and competition, in addition to the structural development of the system has created, over time, a two tier or stratified system of education, which, it could be argued, is stratified along class or social group lines. While education for the masses underpinned the development of the National System established in 1831, it was not until the nineteen sixties and the introduction of free secondary education that the ideal of equal educational opportunity was extended to all.

However, following Marx it is argued that relational structural and institutional barriers exist which limit or define access to financial and cultural resources for certain social groups, thus contributing to persistent differences in educational outcomes between social groups or classes. [3] Equality of opportunity is mediated by these cultural factors. Through the education system and a ‘culture for the masses’ approach, the culture of the dominant ruling class is popularised and legitimised, clashing within the education system with the culture of the working class. [4]

What had existed in Ireland up to the nineteen sixties was a church controlled system of primary education that was state funded but followed the denominational structures of the community. Influenced by the emerging Chicago School Human Capital paradigm, changes were introduced in the nineteen sixties which were intended to address regional and social inequalities in education and to provide for the needs of a growing technical economy. Concerned with processes and structures at the macro level of society, the functionalist model is that of a social system broken down into a number of subsystems, including the economy and education. Change in one part, it is argued, can lead to change in another part or the whole and education is seen as serving the needs of the economy. [5]

In 1954 a Council for Education report had described the function of education as:

The school exists to assist and supplement the work of parents in the rearing of children. Their first duty is to train their children to love and fear God. That duty becomes the first purpose of the primary school. It is fulfilled by the school through the religious and moral training of the child, through the teaching of good habits, through his instruction in the duties of citizenship and in his obligations to his parents and the community, in short, through all that tends to the formation of a person of character, strong in his desire to fulfil the end of his creation. [6]

However, by 1965 the function of education had taken on a different tone:

A country must seek in designing its education system to satisfy, amongst other things, the manpower it needs for the future. If the range and levels of skills required to convert economic potential into economic achievements are not available, a country is unlikely to have the resources needed to provide education of the quality and variety that is being increasingly demanded. As education is at once a cause and a consequence of economic growth, economic planning is incomplete without educational planning. Education, as well as having its own intrinsic values, is a necessary element in economic activity. [7]

Almost overnight the Irish education system shifted from what had been a Theocentric paradigm, concerned with religious and moral formation and extensive church influence and control, to a Mercantile paradigm, concerned with the needs of a capitalist economy but presented as a key requirement for promoting economic growth and eliminating social and regional inequalities in educational outcomes. The religious expertise that had informed policy goals was displaced from the nineteen sixties onwards by World Bank policy, OECD reports, EU funding protocols and whatever was deemed from time to time as ‘best practice’. [8] The functional emphasis on equality of opportunity, one that is meritocratic that allows for social mobility but is not preoccupied by class, gender, or demographic factors that might affect educational outcomes creates a false conception that the wastes, inefficiencies and inequalities of the existing system will be addressed. In fact, and as will subsequently be argued, within the functionalist perspective and the capitalist economy a degree of wastage and inequality is inevitable. As these inequalities inevitably and perpetually fall to the least advantaged groups in society, the question that must be posed is whether a functionalist meritocratic system of education is capable of achieving its ideal: social integration and the dissolution of social hierarchies through the education system.  

The Structural Development of the Irish Education System

The strong involvement of the catholic church in Irish education can be traced from the emergence of a system of Hedge schools in the 18th century. An illegal and secretive system of schooling, the Hedge schools emerged in response to the English Parish School Act of 1537, the aim of which was to anglicise the Irish by harnessing schooling in the support of Protestantism and loyalty to the crown. [9] New political and social values inspired by the French revolution, changing conceptions of childhood and the industrial revolution influenced belief in the provision of education for the masses and the role of the state in this regard. A state supported and controlled system of primary schools was established by a Board of Commissioners in 1831 with the aim of promoting literacy and numeracy, viewed as essential for industrial and economic progress. Pupils of different denominations were to be united in school for literacy and moral instruction, while attending separate religious instruction. However, strong church opposition to the emergence of denominational mixing in schools eventually forced the state to provide funding to denominational primary schools. [10]

In the Laissez Faire economic climate that prevailed, state support for primary education was justified, however, secondary education was viewed as a commodity which, if they saw fit, could be purchased by the middle classes. Secondary education was provided for through private institutions varying enormously in quality and largely following the denominational divisions of the community. For the remainder of the century and until after the establishment of the Free State, efforts at increasing state involvement in educaton were fended off by the power play between economic, church and political interests. Emphasis was placed on subjects that were linked to traditional university study, careers in the church and in the professions as prizes for subjects such as Latin, influenced the curriculum. A highly competitive examination structure emerged and, as a result, the education of the academically weak as well as the less well-off groups in society, suffered. [11]

After the emergence of the Free State symbols of independence such as the Irish language influenced the curriculum, as the new governments energies were harnessed for a cultural revolution through the schools. The principles of Catholicism, Irish nationalism and a revived Gaelic culture were to be embodied in the education system. [12] The establishment of a Department of Education under the Free State did little to introduce any fundamental structural changes. While Eoin MacNeill, Minister for Education in Dáil Éireann in 1924, had placed Equality of Opportunity and Education in the National Interest as the two overarching principles of education, the policies of the twenties, mostly curricular in nature, established a model of education which, with minor modifications, was to exist for another forty years. Reforms introduced practical subjects, examination reform and provisions for financial aid from the State. The system of private management, however, was left unchanged. Secondary education was not made free and this remained a serious barrier to the majority of children as it was available to only 8 percent of the cohort outside urban areas. [13] What existed essentially was a state funded but church controlled Theocracy which concerned itself primarily with moral formation and, for those who went on to the second and third levels, with preparation for employment in the professional classes.  

From Theocracy to Functionalist Meritocracy

From Catholic Emancipation onwards the catholic church dominated education and health provision. Education had been crucial to the inter-generational reproduction of Catholicism, contributing hugely to Irish nation building before and after independence. Catholic values became constitutionally enshrined. The key social doctrine encyclicals that set out a catholic welfare ethos, Rerum Novarum (1891) and Quadragesimmo Anno (1931) emerged in response to liberal and state socialist conceptions of social policy, which resisted unnecessary encroachment upon the family and the voluntary sector by higher institutions such as the state. [14] Both encyclicals offered fairly sophisticated engagements with liberalism and socialism that allowed for elastic thinking about how the state and other actors should address changing and social conditions. Irish education in the decades after independence was shaped by theological rather than economic goals. Post-independence ‘Irish-Ireland’ nation-building combined catholic conservatism with post-colonial economic isolationism. The expansion of education from the nineteen sixties arguably fostered secularism amongst the first generation to benefit from free secondary education. In the longer term, this prompted a rise in an individualism more open to neoliberal than Theocentric conceptions of education. [15]

A Dáil resolution proposed by Dr. Noel Browne, in relation to the school leaving age and educational access, provoked a debate that is credited with eliciting the first official signal of the changes which were to underpin education in the sixties. Debate in the Dáil in relation to education was no longer confined to the issue of the Irish language, and education policy began to occupy a more central place in government discussion. [16] In a significant sense, the influence of the catholic church in social policies was dramatically underlined in the controversy over the governments plans in 1950 for a comprehensive medical welfare scheme, more commonly known as the ‘Mother and Child Scheme’ . Church objections to certain features of this plan led to the resignation of first, Dr. Browne, by then Minister of Health, and subsequently of the coalition government itself. The first major state church conflict since the establishment of the state was a clear indication that the catholic church would not hesitate to exercise its considerable influence in opposing any attempt to introduce social legislation of a kind which it believed to transgress its teachings. However, the framework of influence within which the contemporary Irish education system developed was to be considerably altered as education was removed from the sacristy and placed in line with the need for economic and technical change in Irish society. [17]

These changes need to be understood within the context of an attitudinal shift in public and political conceptions of the role of education in society, as internationally, human capital theory influenced the thinking of the relationship between education and the economy. [18] Irish political concern centred on whether economically, the nation would survive the fifties. In 1963, the Second Programme for Economic Expansion acknowledged that:

Improved and extended educational facilities help to equalise opportunities by enabling an increasing proportion of the community to develop their potentialities and to raise their personal standards of living. Expenditure on education is an investment in the fuller use of the country’s primary resource, its people, which can be expected to yield increasing returns in terms of economic progress. [19]

The impetus for deeper reform of the education system in Ireland came from the publication in 1965 of an OECD/Irish Government report on education entitled Investment in Education . The report, intensely positivistic, fact finding and analytical [20] documented social class and regional disparities in educational participation rates, and insufficient levels of manpower for economic development. [21]

The OECD analysis, which found the Irish system to be grossly neglectful of the children of poorer classes in society, prompted a series of reforms including curricular change and the removal of second level fees in 1967. It was believed that the removal of second level fees would promote equality of educational opportunity for all. [22] As put in a 1966 Irish Times article:

Every year, some 17,000 of our children finishing their primary school course do not receive any further education. This means that almost one in three of our future citizens are cut off at this stage from the opportunities of learning a skill, and denied the benefits of cultural development that go with further education. This is a dark stain on the national conscience. For it means that some one-third of our people have been condemned, the great majority through no fault of their own, to be part-educated unskilled labour, always the weaker who go to the wall of unemployment or emigration. [23]

Contrary to expectations, the removal of second level fees had the effect of reinforcing the influence of private second level education. What had emerged in the Irish Free State were powerful intermediate or middle classes who have continued since independence to dominate politics at both

local and national levels and this was only reinforced by the meritocratic system that came about as a result of the nineteen sixties reforms. Not only has this group benefited most from the education system over time, they are also strategically and powerfully located within the state civil service machinery, influencing educational policies in a very centralised system. [24] The economic and social context within which educational choices take place is one of increasing social inequalities and social polarisation, where school becomes a space where the working classes are ‘out of place’ and relegated to the lowest rungs on the ladder of educational opportunities, life chances and social mobility. [25]  

Individualism in the Functionalist Meritocracy

Investment in Education amounted to a paradigm shift whereby a Mercantile paradigm broke with an earlier dominant Theocentric one. [26] While Investment in Education did not aim to secularise education, the report advanced strategic goals that were at odds with the traditional Catholic ethos. In effect it replaced the theocratic expertise that dominated education policy with mercantile expertise: a utilitarian approach to education combined with the use of managerial indicators to measure and classify education outcomes. Investment in Education steered education policy on a new ‘mercantile’ cultural trajectory that continues to be followed.

Investment in Education and subsequent reports also emphasized a Human Capital education paradigm. This differed from the mercantile one in its focus on the benefits to the individual rather than the economy. In this simplest of terms investment in education led to economic growth. At an individual level education was seen to deliver higher incomes and status. By expanding education provision the State could create more opportunity and maximise human capital. As put in the Second Programme for Economic Expansion (1964): ‘Since our wealth lies ultimately in our people, the aim of educational policy must be to enable all individuals to realise their full potential as human persons.’ Such human capital perspectives imply a functional emphasis on equality of opportunity. However, the problem with this view is that it emphasizes the individuals ability as detached from the complexity of their social, institutional, economic and cultural environment.  

The Problem with Functionalism

For functionalists, the great driver of change and development in modern societies was industrialisation which, together with attendant economic change, was thought to bring about change in other parts of the social structure. An ideal preparation for factory work was to be found in the social relations of the school. [27] Occupational positions required ever more particular skills and those not possessed naturally could be acquired. A fundamental assumption was that fixed demand existed for skills of varying types. The basic determinant of who would be selected for which positions was based on an individuals ability to meet those skills, as demonstrated by the level of qualification achieved. [28] Maturing industrial societies moved steadily towards meritocracy and certification as the principles of occupational placement in an ever more productive and efficient economic system of perpetual growth. Such societies would require greater rates of inter and intra generational mobility, gradually reducing the complement of unskilled, low paid and manual labour while increasing its sector of professional, technical and managerial occupations. This would serve an advanced technology and would deliver an ever higher per capita GNP. [29] Education would play a crucial role in the formation of a more affluent and perhaps classless society, and the single most important determinant of a persons occupational destination. [30]

While positions may have prestige, the question that must be posed is how individuals come to occupy these positions. It could be argued that it is because they have fulfilled the technical requirements demanded of each position. However, once in these positions they may exert a degree of control over the mechanisms of selection as they seek to protect their own interests. Although unequal distribution of power serves to maintain inequalities in education, their origins are to be found outside the political sphere in the class structure itself and in the class subcultures typical of capitalist society. Unequal education has its roots in the very class structure which it serves to legitimise and reproduce. Although functionalists address issues of inequality, there is an assumption that consensus around a shared set of values (the values, ideas and interests of the ruling class) exists within society which are transmitted from one generation to the next, thus perpetuating class divisions and hierarchies. The education system plays a key role in this process. [31] Although education is presented as the great liberator of the people, it is in fact a mechanism of coercion, the basis on which the dominant group will then step into other state mechanisms of coercion: legislative, executive and administrative. [32] As Marx points out, the executive of the modern government is nothing but a committee designed to manage the privilege of the ruling class. [33]  

Education as an Agent of Class Divisions

The concept of equality of opportunity is firmly embedded within the functionalist perspective. However, functionalism views a degree of social and economic inequality as both inevitable and necessary to the proper functioning of society and the economy as a limited number of meritorious positions exist. Groups are defined by economic relationships which translate into closed class groups, with little chance for those born into particular groups to transfer out of them through educational channels. One of the main aims of the education system, therefore, is to select according to talent, to allocate to particular positions in the social and economic hierarchy and, as such, to facilitate social mobility. It is assumed that everyone has the chance to start from the same unequal position and to compete, using skill and effort, for the various social positions most suited to their talents. Those with the greatest amount of innate talent who apply effort will be rewarded with positions of prestige. [34] All individuals are motivated to maximise their rewards but as power and privilege are both scarce commodities and determinants of wealth, there is an inherent conflict and struggle for power, wealth and prestige which is played out through organisations, especially where pro-achievement and pro-individualistic educationalists share the ideas and values of other elites. [35] These educationalists come from particular social groups and are trained in institutions controlled by the dominant groups. Here they assimilate a pedagogic style and content which perpetuates the domain assumptions of the dominant class. Education will be most important where there is a cultural or domain assumption fit between those leaving school and those selecting for employment, as employers use education to select individuals who have acquired the dominant culture.

The social division of labour creates class subcultures. The values, personality traits and expectations characteristic of each sub culture are inter-generationally transmitted through class differences in family socialisation and through complementary differences in the type and amount of schooling ordinarily attained by children from various class backgrounds. [36]

The differential socialisation patterns in schools attended by students of different social classes do not arise by accident. Rather, they stem from the fact that the educational objectives and expectations of both parents and teachers and the responsiveness of students to various patterns of teaching and controls differ for students of different social classes. [37] School practices such as ability streaming, differential participation in after school activities, the attitudes of teachers and personnel all serve to perpetuate the stratification of educational outcomes along class lines. [38] Perpetual educational disadvantage becomes an inherited position reflecting past prejudices and deliberately manipulated institutional structures, the burden of which is passed down from one generation to the next, what Marx describes as ‘the muck of ages’. [39]

If functionalist meritocracy is defined in terms of the distinction between ascription and achievement, using family background indicators for the former and education qualifications for the latter, both ascription and achievement forces can be evidenced at work in the passing of social opportunity and occupational status between generations. However, the dice of social opportunity has been weighted in favour of opportunity according to class – a game played through strategies of child rearing, mediated by schools through their certifying arrangements and personnel who are trained to mediate and channel so as to maintain, subconsciously perhaps, existing social relations. The instruments which are indispensable to success in the education system, for example modes of communication, are unequally divided between the children of different social groups. This is furthered by an education system that practices a particular type of pedagogy, with which children must already be familiar and it is children from the advantaged

classes that are most likely to be familiar with it. The professed ideal of equal access to educational opportunities for those of equal ability is not necessarily served, as the distribution of educational opportunities is conditioned by decisions and actions that effectively accommodate social class as well as other information about students. [40]  

The shortcomings of the meritocratic view are to stress the technical rather than the social relationships of production, and to present the economic role of education largely as the production of job skills. However in a capitalist economy it is from the social relationships of work that economic inequality and social immobility arise. Where education systems perpetuate the structure of privilege, they are powerless to correct economic inequality. In Ireland, the existence of a minority group in positions of power at the apex of the hierarchy, contrasts with the very large base of low income earners and those from the privileged groups in society continue to be over-represented at the third level of education. [41] By the end of the Celtic Tiger, Ireland ranked among the OECD countries with the highest levels of income inequality. [42] The latest available data on early school leaving demonstrates the persistence of social background as a contributing factor. [43]

The meritocratic orientation of the education system promotes not its egalitarian function, but rather its integrative role, by reinforcing the domain assumptions and culture of the dominant group. Education reproduces inequality by justifying privilege and attributing poverty to personal failure. More equitable schooling is unlikely to have an effect on more equitable distribution of income, most likely because structural factors are not considered. However, the modern liberal approach is to attribute social class differences to inequality of opportunity. [44]

A major element in the integrative function of education is the legitimation of pre-existing economic disparities. Efforts to realize egalitarian objectives are not simply weak they are also in substantial conflict with the integrative function of education. The education system legitimates economic inequality by providing an open, objective and ostensibly meritocratic mechanism for assigning individuals to unequal economic positions. It fosters and reinforces the belief that economic success depends essentially on the possession of technical and cognitive skills skills which it is organised to provide in an efficient, equitable and unbiased manner on the basis of meritocratic principle. However, at the heart of the functionalist meritocratic model lies a fundamental contradiction: as a limited number of prestigious positions exist, only a limited number of people can occupy them, regardless of their abilities or efforts.

In fact, the social classes and hierarchies that exist in society are reproduced and maintained by social and economic institutions. Mobility between classes is constrained by economic, political and social institutions, such as education, which is an integral element in the reproduction of the prevailing class structure. The function of the education system is to reproduce the culture of the dominant classes, thus helping to ensure their continued dominance and to perpetuate their covert exercise of power. Within this context a functionalist meritocratic education system, designed to serve the needs of a capitalist economy, will not in fact act as an instrument of social equalisation and redistribution.

Education can foster personal development and economic equality only under one condition: a social, economic and cultural revolution which will extend democracy to all parts of the social order. The functionalist liberal educational reforms of the nineteen sixties and the liberal individualistic education system that emerged had as its dual objective to stimulate economic activity and to reduce educational inequalities between the social classes. It has failed in these objectives because of its relationship with the fundamental characteristics of the capitalist economy. The existing social relationships of economic power are reproduced by the education system and this lies at the heart of the failure of the functionalist meritocratic educational creed to deliver a classless society.

1. Clancy, 1982, 2005.

2. Murphy, 2006.

3. Smyth & Hannan, 2000.

4. Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977.

5. Drudy & Lynch, 1993.

6. Ireland, 1954.

7. Ireland, 1965.

8. O’Sullivan, 2005.

9. Lyons, 1971.

10. Coolahan, 1981.

11. Ó Buachalla, 1988.

12. Farren, 1995.

13. Ó Buachalla, 1988.

14. The concept of subsidiarity.

15. Fanning & MacVeigh, 2007.

16. Farren, 1995; Ó Buachalla, 1988.

17. Farren, 1995.

18. O’Sullivan, 2005.

19. Ireland, 1964.

20. The report ran to 1,200 pages over two volumes, the majority of which contained dense statistical tables.

21. Ireland, 1965.

22. Breen et al. , 1990.

23. From the Irish Times , 12 September 1966, p. 1. Cited in Ryan, L. (1967), Social Dynamite: A Study of Early School-leavers . Christus Rex.

24. Lynch, 1982.

25. Reay & Ball, 1997.

26. O’Sulllivan, 2005.

27. Bowles, 1977.

28. Collins, 1971.

29. Gross National Product (GNP) is the market value of all products and services produced in one year by labour and property supplied by the residents of a country.

30. Halsey, 1977.

31. Bowles, 1977.

32. Holborow, 2012.

33. Molyneux, 2012.

34. Rottman et al. , 1981.

35. Lynch, 1982.

36. Bowles, 1977.

37. Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977.

38. Lynch 1999.

39. Tucker, 1978.

40. Halsey, 1977.

41. O’Connell et al. , 2006.

42. Nolan & Maitre, 2007.

43. Economic and Social Research Institute, 2009.

44. Bowles & Gintis, 1976.

Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J.C. (1977), Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture . London, Sage.

Bowles, S. (1977). Unequal Education and the Reproduction of the Social Division of Labour , Chapter 5 in Karabel, J. and Halsey A.H. (1977), Power and Ideology in Education . New York, Oxford University Press.

Bowles, S. and Gintis, H. (1976), Schooling in Capitalist America . Routledge.

Breen, R. ( et al. ) (1990), Education: The promise of reform and the growth of credentialism , Chapter 6 in Breen, R. et al. (1990), Understanding Contemporary Ireland . Dublin: Gill & Macmillan.

Clancy, P. (1982), Participation in Higher Education: A National Survey . Higher Education Authority, (Dublin).

Clancy, P. (2005), Education Policy . Chapter 5 in Quin, S., Kennedy, P., Matthews, A., Kiely, G. ( eds. ) (2005), Contemporary Irish Social Policy , UCD Press.

Collins, R. (1971), Functional and Conflict Theories of Educational Stratification , American Sociological Review , 36: 1002–1019.

Coolahan, J. (1981), Irish Education: history and structure , Institute of Public Administration, Dublin.

Drudy, S. and Lynch, K. (1993), Schools and Society in Ireland , Dublin: Gill and Macmillan.

Economic and Social Research Institute (2009), Investing in Education: Combating Educational Disadvantage , ESRI, Dublin.

Fanning, B. and MacVeigh, T. (2007), Developmental Welfare Once Again: Growth and Human Capital , Chapter 6 in Hayward, K. and MacCarthaigh, M. ( eds. ) (2007), Recycling the State: The Politics of Adaptation in Ireland . Irish Academic Press.

Farren, S. (1995), The Politics of Irish Education, 1920–65 , The Queens University of Belfast, Institute of Irish Studies, 1995.

Halsey, A.H. (1977), Towards Meritocracy? The Case of Britain , Chapter 7 in Karabel, J. and Halsey, A.H. ( eds. ) (1977), Power and Ideology in Education , New York, Oxford University Press.

Holborow, M. (2012), Austerity, Capitalism and the Restructuring of Irish Higher Education . Irish Marxist Review , Vol. 1, Issue 2, June 2012.

Ireland, Government of (1964), Second Programme for Economic Expansion . Part II . Laid by the Government before each House of the Oireachtas, July 1964, Dublin Stationery Office.

Ireland, Government of (1965), Investment in Education , Volume I (Dublin: Stationary Office).

Lynch, K. (1982), A Sociological Analysis of the Functions of Second Level Schooling , Irish Educational Studies , Vol. 2, 1982, pp. 32–58

Lynch, K. (1999), Equality in Education , Gill & Macmillan.

Molyneux, J. (2012), Historical Materialism , Chapter 6 in The Point is to Change It! An Introduction to Marxist Philosophy , Bookmarks Publications.

Lyons, F.S.C. (1971), Ireland since the Famine , Fontana Press.

Murphy, W.M. (2006), The Leaving Certificate Applied and Equality of Educational Opportunity for Working-class Girls , Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, School of Equality and Social Justice, University College Dublin.

Nolan, B. and Maitre, B. (2007), Economic Growth and Income Inequality: Setting the Context , Chapter 3 in Fahey, R., Russel, H. and Whelan, C.T. ( eds. ) (2007), Best of Times? The Social Impact of the Celtic Tiger , Institute of Public Administration: Dublin.

Ó Buachalla, S. (1988), Education Policy in Twentieth Century Ireland , Wolfhound Press, Dublin.

O’Connell, P., Clancy, D. and McCoy, S. (2006), Who Went to College in 2004? A National Survey of New Entrants to Higher Education , Higher Education Authority, Dublin

O’Sullivan, D. (2005), Cultural Politics and Irish Education since the 1950s: Policy Paradigms and Power , Dublin: Institute of Public Administration.

Reay, D. and Ball, S. (1997), Spoilt for Choice: the working classes and educational markets , Oxford Review of Education , Vol. 23, No. 1, 1997.

Rottman, D.B., Hannan, D.F. and Wiley, M.M. (1981), Social Policy and Income Adequacy in the Republic of Ireland: The Importance of Social Class and Family Cycle , Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland , Vol. 24, Part III, 1980/81, pp. 171–2.

Smyth, E. and Hannan, D.F. (2000), Education and Inequality , Chapter 6 in Nolan, B. et al. (2000), Bust to Boom? The Irish Experience of Growth and Inequality , Institute of Public Administration: Dublin.

Tucker, R.C. (1978), The Marx-Engels Reader , Second Edition. Norton, New York.

  Top of page

Last updated on 18 July 2019

Critical Education, Social Democratic Education, Revolutionary Marxist Education

• First Online: 14 September 2022

Cite this chapter

• Dave Hill 4  

1137 Accesses

Writing from a Revolutionary Marxist political and Classical Marxist theoretical perspective, I identify and critique two types of Critical Education: (i) democratic socialist/Left social democratic/ and (ii) Revolutionary Marxist. I focus on Revolutionary Marxist education, distinguishing it, in particular, from both ‘Centrist’ and Left versions of social democratic education (e.g., Michael Apple and Henry Giroux). I set out what I consider to be five key aspects Marxists critique about education policy and make proposals and seek to enact, relating to: (i) Curriculum and Assessment, (ii) Pedagogy, (iii) The Organizational Culture within the School/Institution, (iv) Organization of The Education System and of Students, for example, comprehensive schooling or selective schooling and (v) Ownership and Control of Schools, Colleges and Universities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Althusser, L. (1962). Contradiction and overdetermination . https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1962/appendix.htm

Althusser, L. (1971). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses. In L. Althusser (Ed.), Lenin and philosophy and other essays . New Left Books. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1970/ideology.htm

Anyon, J. (2011). Marx and education . Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

Apple, M. (2006). Review essay: Rhetoric and reality in critical educational studies in the United States. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 27 (5), 679–687.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ball, S. J. (2003). Class strategies and the educational market: The middle classes and social advantage . RoutledgeFalmer.

Banfield, G. (2015). Marx and education: Working with the revolutionary educator. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 13 (3). http://www.jceps.com/archives/2792

Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture . Sage.

Google Scholar  

Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America . Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Bukharin, N., & Preobrazhensky, Y. (1922/1969). The ABC of communism . Penguin Books. https://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1920/abc

Busby, M. (2020, September 27). Schools in England told not to use material from anti-capitalist groups. The Guardian . https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/sep/27/uk-schools-told-not-to-use-anti-capitalist-material-in-teaching

Castanheira, P., & Costa, J. A. (2011). From a collegially elected council to a director: The evolution of Portuguese school management. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15 , 2007–2011. www.sciencedirect

Department for Education and Employment (DfEE). (1998). The national literacy strategy: Framework for teaching . HMSO.

Doe, B. (1984, March 23). Improving London’s schools. Times Educational Supplement .

Edwards, G., Hill, D., & Boxley, S. (2018). Critical teacher education for economic, environmental and social justice. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 16 (3). http://www.jceps.com/archives/49021

Farahmandpur, R. (2004). Essay review: A Marxist critique of Michael Apple’s neo-Marxist approach to educational reform. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 2 (1). http://www.jceps.com/wp-content/uploads/PDFs/02-1-4.pdf

Faulkner, N., Hearse, P., Hannah, S., Fortune, R., & Fortune, N. (2021). System crash: An activist guide to the coming democratic revolution: Chapter 6 the new fascism . https://www.anticapitalistresistance.org/post/the-new-Fascism

Floud, J., Halsey, A. H., & Martin, F. M. (1957). Social class and educational opportunity . Heinemann.

Foley, J. A., Morris, D., Gounari, P., & Agostinone-Wilson, F. (2015). Critical education, critical pedagogies, Marxist education in the United States. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 13 (3). http://www.jceps.com/archives/2758

Ford, D. (2016). Communist study: Education for the commons . Lexington Books.

Giroux, H. (1983). Theories of reproduction and resistance in the new sociology of education: A critical analysis. Harvard Education Review, 55 (3), 257–293. https://www.academia.edu/3638580/Theories_of_Resistance_and_Reproduction_in_the_New_Sociology_of_Education

Giroux, H. (2001). Theory and resistance in education: Towards a pedagogy for the opposition. Bergin and Garvey.

Gonzalez, A. O., & Rikowski, G. (2019). Interview with Glenn Rikowski on Marxism, critical pedagogy and inclusive education: Discussions for a revolutionary discourse. Revista Izquierdas, 45 (1), 260–276. https://www.aacademica.org/aldo.ocampo.gonzalez/9.pdf

Gramsci, A. (1971/2000). Selections from the prison notebooks . International Publishers Co. https://www.marxists.org/archive/gramsci/prison_notebooks/selections.htm

Halsey, A. H. (1972). Educational priority volume 1: EPA problems and policies . HMSO.

Hill, D. (1994). Teacher education and training: A left critique. Forum (For Promoting 3-19 Comprehensive Education), 6 (3), 74–76. http://www.wwwords.co.uk/forum/content/pdfs/36/Forum_36_3.pdf

Hill, D. (1997). Equality in primary schooling: The policy context, intentions and effects of the conservative ‘reforms’. In M. Cole, D. Hill, & Shan, S. (Eds.), Promoting equality in primary schools . Cassell. http://www.ieps.org.uk/publications/online-papers-dave-hill/

Hill, D. (2001). State theory and the neo-liberal reconstruction of schooling and teacher education: A structuralist neo-Marxist critique of postmodernist, quasi-postmodernist, and culturalist neo-Marxist theory. The British Journal of Sociology of Education, 22 (1), 137–157. http://www.ieps.org.uk/media/1162/brit-jnl-sociol-of-educ-22-1-2001-dave-hill-state-theory-article.pdf

Hill, D. (2003). Brief autobiography of a Bolshie Dismissed . http://www.ieps.org.uk.cwc.net/bolsharticle.pdf

Hill, D. (2009). Culturalist and materialist explanations of class and ‘race’: Critical race theory, equivalence/parallelist theory, and Marxist theory. Cultural Logic: An Electronic Journal of Marxist Theory & Practice, 12 , 1–52. https://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/clogic/article/view/191552/188664

Hill, D. (2010). A socialist manifesto for education . Institute for Education Policy Studies. http://www.ieps.org.uk/media/1003/socialistmanifestofored.pdf

Hill, D. (2013). Marxist essays on neoliberalism, class, ‘race’, capitalism, socialism and education . The Institute for Education Policy Studies.

Hill, D. (2015). A socialist education policy. Forum for Promoting 3-19 Comprehensive Education . http://www.wwwords.co.uk/rss/abstract.asp?j=forum&aid=6224

Hill, D. (2019a). Marxist education and teacher education against capitalism in neoliberal/neoconservative/neofascist/times. Cadernos do GPOSSHE On-line , 2018 Estadual do Ceará Fortaleza, Brazil (Grupo de Pesquisa Ontologia do Ser Social, História, Educação e Emancipação Humana). https://revistas.uece.br/index.php/CadernosdoGPOSSHE/article/view/1524/1275?fbclid=IwAR349OKt6lL5HRD1SiJK-6Iv7EwlQLoJpbNlVQqrjvH-LW89JHT5fAeXdFA

Hill, D. (2019b). Marxism and teacher education. In M. Peters (Ed.), Encyclopedia of teacher education (pp. 1–6). Springer Singapore.

Hill, D. (2019c). Marxist public policy principles: Schooling and teacher education training. In P. Vittoria & D. Hill with I. Accioly (Eds.), O Bella Ciao; Critical education as resistance against populism, sexism and racism . Educazione Aperta. http://educazioneaperta.it/

Hill, D. (2021). Excluding/including the (‘raced’ and gendered working class: Neoliberal, neoconservative/neofascist schooling and education in Covid times: A classical Marxist critical analysis and activist programme [Excluyendo/ Incluyendo la Clases de Trabajo (‘Raced’ y de Genero): Escuela y Educacion Neoliberal/ Neoconservador/ NeoFascista en Tiempos Covidos: Un Programa de Activis y Analisis Critico Clasico Marxista]. Centro de Estudios Latinoamericanos de Educación Inclusiva (CELEI), Chile

Hill, D., Cole, M., & Williams. C. (1997). Equality and primary teacher education. In M. Cole, D. Hill, & S. Shan (Eds.), Promoting equality in primary schools . Cassell. http://www.ieps.org.uk/publications/online-papers-dave-hill/

Hill, D., Lewis, C., Maisuria, A., Yarker, P., & Hill, J. (2016) Conservative education policy reloaded: Policy, ideology and impacts in England. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 14 (3). http://www.jceps.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/14-3-1-1.pdf

Inner London Education Authority (ILEA). (1984). Improving secondary schools—A summary of the Hargreaves report . ILEA.

Jones, K. (1989). Right turn: The conservative revolution in education . Hutchinson Radius.

Jones, K. (2003). Education in Britain, 1944 to the present . Polity.

Kelsh, D., & Hill, D. (2006). The culturalization of class and the occluding of class consciousness: The knowledge industry in/of education. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 4 (1). http://www.jceps.com/?pageID=article&articleID=59

Lenin, V. I. (1902/1999). What is to be done? Burning questions of our movement . https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/

Luxemburg, R. (1899/1999). Reform or revolution: Party, vanguard, programme and organisation. https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/

Marx, K. (1847/1999). The poverty of philosophy . https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/

Marx, K. (1852/1999). The eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte . https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1848/2010). The Communist Manifesto. Marxist Internet Archive. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf

McGrew, K. (2011). On being holier-than-thou: A critique of Curry Malott’s “Pseudo-Marxism and the reformist retreat from revolution” . Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 9 (1). http://www.jceps.com/index.php?pageID=article&articleID=222

McLaren, P. (2000). Che Guevara, Paulo Freire and the pedagogy of revolution . Rowman & Littlefield.

McLaren, P. (2010). Revolutionary critical pedagogy . Interactions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies, 6 (2). http://escholarship.org/uc/item/7qj2b570

McLaren, P. (2013). Critical pedagogy against capitalist education—A socialist alternative. Global Education Magazine . http://www.globaleducationmagazine.com/critical-pedagogy-againstcapitalist-schooling-socialist-alternative-interview-peter-mclaren/

McLaren, P. (2016). Revolutionary critical pedagogy: Staking a claim against the macrostructural unconscious. Critical Education, 7 (8), 1–43. https://ices.library.ubc.ca/index.php/criticaled/article/view/186144

Reay, D. (2018). Miseducation: Inequality, education and the working classes . The Policy Press.

Rikowski, G. (2006). In Retro Glide. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 4 (2). http://www.jceps.com/?pageID=article&articleID=81

Rikowski, G. (2019, July). Education crises as crises for capital. Theory in Action, 12 (3), 128–172. https://rikowski.wordpress.com/2019/08/25/education-crises-as-crises-for-capital-2/

Simon, B. (1978). The politics of education reform, 1920–1940 . Lawrence and Wishart.

Stańczyk, P. (2021). The critique of the critical critique of critical pedagogy: Freire, Suchodolski and the materialist pedagogy of emancipation. Critical Education, 12 (4), 1–24. http://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/criticaled/article/view/186502

Vygotsky, L. S. (1934). Thinking and speech . https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/words/Thinking-and-Speech.pdf

Woods, A. (2020, July 2). Why is the Brazilian right afraid of Paulo Freire? Open Democracy. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/democraciaabierta/why-is-the-brazilian-right-afraid-of-paulo-freire/

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Anglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford and Cambridge, UK

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Educational Studies, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

Ali A. Abdi

Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

Greg William Misiaszek

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Hill, D. (2022). Critical Education, Social Democratic Education, Revolutionary Marxist Education. In: Abdi, A.A., Misiaszek, G.W. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook on Critical Theories of Education. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86343-2_14

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86343-2_14

Published : 14 September 2022

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-86342-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-86343-2

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Live revision! Join us for our free exam revision livestreams Watch now →

Reference Library

Collections

• See what's new
• All Resources
• Student Resources
• Assessment Resources
• Teaching Resources
• CPD Courses
• Livestreams

Study notes, videos, interactive activities and more!

Sociology news, insights and enrichment

Currated collections of free resources

Browse resources by topic

• All Sociology Resources

Resource Selections

Currated lists of resources

• Study Notes

Feminist Views on the Role of Education

Last updated 26 Nov 2019

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share by Email

Feminist sociologists have large areas of agreement with functionalists and Marxists in so far as they see the education system as transmitting a particular set of norms and values into the pupils. However, instead of seeing these as either a neutral value consensus or the values of the ruling class and capitalism, feminists see the education system as transmitting patriarchal values.

For example, Heaton and Lawson (1996) argued that the hidden curriculum taught patriarchal values in schools. They noted traditional family structures in textbooks (along with many other gender stereotypes, subjects aimed towards specific genders, gender divisions in PE and sport and the gender division of labour in schools (predominantly female teachers and male managers).

Liberal feminists would point out these remaining issues of patriarchy in education while also acknowledging significant strides towards equality in the education system. In the 1940s and 50s, under the tripartite system, boys had a lower pass rate for the 11+ than girls (essentially institutionally failing girls in order to ensure more boys can succeed) and some subjects being specifically for one gender or the other used to be institutional rather than based on apparent preference. Today, once subjects become optional, there are quite clear gender preferences for one subject or another, but all subjects are open to all pupils. Perhaps the biggest change, since the 1980s, is that girls now outperform boys in education so if the system is a patriarchal one, designed to favour boys, it is singularly failing. However, Michelle Stanworth (1983), for instance, noted that there will still higher expectations of boys and teachers would be more likely to recommend boys apply for higher education than girls at the same academic level.

Radical feminists argue that the education system is still fundamentally patriarchal and continues to marginalise and oppress women. It does this through some of the processes already noted (reinforcing patriarchal ideology through the formal and hidden curriculum and normalising the marginalisation and oppression of women so that by the time girls leave school they see it as normal and natural rather than as patriarchal oppression). Radical feminist research has also looked at sexual harassment in education and how it is not treated as seriously as other forms of bullying (e.g. Kat Banyard, 2011).

Black and difference feminists point out how not all girls have the same experience in education and that minority-ethnic girls are often victims of specific stereotyping and assumptions. For example, teachers might assume that Muslim girls have different aspirations in relation to career and family from their peers. There have been studies of the specific school experiences of black girls, which we will consider in more detail in future sections.

Where feminists acknowledge that there has been a great deal of improvement for girls in education, they would point to feminism itself as being one of the main reasons for this. Sue Sharpe (1996) found that London schoolgirls in the 1970s had completely different priorities and aspirations from similar girls in 1996. She found that while in the 1970s girls’ priorities were marriage and family, in the 1990s this had switched dramatically to career. While there are a number of potential reasons for this, legislative changes such as the 1970 Equal Pay Act and the 1976 Sex Discrimination Act are likely to have played their part, hence supporting a liberal feminist perspective).

What all feminists agree on is that the education system does work as an agent of secondary socialisation which teaches girls and boys what are seen as universal norms and values and gender scripts that are actually those of contemporary patriarchy and that girls and boys learning these values prevents social change and challenges to patriarchy.

Evaluating feminist views on the role of education

Two features of contemporary education, at least in the UK, which critics of feminist views on education often point out are: 1) education is an increasingly female-dominated sector (most teachers are women, an increasing number of managers are women because they are drawn from the available teachers) and 2) the education system is increasingly resulting in female success and male underperformance. If this is a system designed to ensure men are in the top positions in society and women are marginalised into a domestic role, then it would appear to be failing. The education system is sending more and more girls into higher education (Michelle Stanworth’s research on this is now out of date).

However, while there is clearly some truth in these criticisms, it is still clear that there is a glass ceiling and a gender pay gap so the education system might be creating lots of highly-qualified girls, they are still losing out to their male peers when it comes to top jobs and higher incomes. They are also still more likely to take time off for child-rearing, work part time and to carry out the majority of housework tasks. Feminists point out that the education system largely normalises this (alongside other agents of socialisation such as the family and the media) and so even highly-qualified women often accept this as inevitable or normal. At the same time men are socialised to also consider this normal.

• Hidden curriculum
• Radical Feminism

You might also like

​example answer for question 1 paper 1: a level sociology, june 2017 (aqa).

Exam Support

New research about child poverty

8th December 2017

A Home Education

16th April 2018

'Plastic brains'

16th January 2019

Bowles and Gintis on Education

Topic Videos

Early years education

3rd March 2020

After Covid, will digital learning be the new normal?

2nd February 2021

Anti-racism training in Wales to boost ethnically diverse teachers

18th October 2022

The Unique Burial of a Child of Early Scythian Time at the Cemetery of Saryg-Bulun (Tuva)

<< Previous page

Pages:  379-406

In 1988, the Tuvan Archaeological Expedition (led by M. E. Kilunovskaya and V. A. Semenov) discovered a unique burial of the early Iron Age at Saryg-Bulun in Central Tuva. There are two burial mounds of the Aldy-Bel culture dated by 7th century BC. Within the barrows, which adjoined one another, forming a figure-of-eight, there were discovered 7 burials, from which a representative collection of artifacts was recovered. Burial 5 was the most unique, it was found in a coffin made of a larch trunk, with a tightly closed lid. Due to the preservative properties of larch and lack of air access, the coffin contained a well-preserved mummy of a child with an accompanying set of grave goods. The interred individual retained the skin on his face and had a leather headdress painted with red pigment and a coat, sewn from jerboa fur. The coat was belted with a leather belt with bronze ornaments and buckles. Besides that, a leather quiver with arrows with the shafts decorated with painted ornaments, fully preserved battle pick and a bow were buried in the coffin. Unexpectedly, the full-genomic analysis, showed that the individual was female. This fact opens a new aspect in the study of the social history of the Scythian society and perhaps brings us back to the myth of the Amazons, discussed by Herodotus. Of course, this discovery is unique in its preservation for the Scythian culture of Tuva and requires careful study and conservation.

Keywords: Tuva, Early Iron Age, early Scythian period, Aldy-Bel culture, barrow, burial in the coffin, mummy, full genome sequencing, aDNA

Information about authors: Marina Kilunovskaya (Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation). Candidate of Historical Sciences. Institute for the History of Material Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Dvortsovaya Emb., 18, Saint Petersburg, 191186, Russian Federation E-mail: [email protected] Vladimir Semenov (Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation). Candidate of Historical Sciences. Institute for the History of Material Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Dvortsovaya Emb., 18, Saint Petersburg, 191186, Russian Federation E-mail: [email protected] Varvara Busova  (Moscow, Russian Federation).  (Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation). Institute for the History of Material Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences.  Dvortsovaya Emb., 18, Saint Petersburg, 191186, Russian Federation E-mail:  [email protected] Kharis Mustafin  (Moscow, Russian Federation). Candidate of Technical Sciences. Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology.  Institutsky Lane, 9, Dolgoprudny, 141701, Moscow Oblast, Russian Federation E-mail:  [email protected] Irina Alborova  (Moscow, Russian Federation). Candidate of Biological Sciences. Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology.  Institutsky Lane, 9, Dolgoprudny, 141701, Moscow Oblast, Russian Federation E-mail:  [email protected] Alina Matzvai  (Moscow, Russian Federation). Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology.  Institutsky Lane, 9, Dolgoprudny, 141701, Moscow Oblast, Russian Federation E-mail:  [email protected]

Shopping Cart Items: 0 Cart Total: 0,00 € place your order

Price pdf version

student - 2,75 € individual - 3,00 € institutional - 7,00 €

Copyright В© 1999-2022. Stratum Publishing House

Serial Killer Quick Reference Guides

#1 Stranglers

• Killer.Cloud
• Serial Killers
• Necrophiliacs

Sergei Ryakhovsky

The balashikha ripper, the hippopotamus,   active for 6 years (1988-1993) in russia, confirmed victims, possible victims.

• Serial Killer Profile
• Serial Killer Type
• General Information
• Characteristics
• Cognitive Ability
• Incarceration
• 8 Timeline Events
• Serial Killers Active During Spree
• Boolean Statistical Questions
• 12 Books Written About Sergei Ryakhovsky
• 3 External References

Internal References

Sergei Ryakhovsky (Sergei Vasilyevich Ryakhovsky) a Soviet-Russian serial killer known as the Balashikha Ripper and The Hippopotamus. Ryakhovsky was convicted for the killing of nineteen people in the Moscow area between 1988 and 1993. Ryakhovsky's mainly stabbed or strangulated his victims, he mutilated some bodies, mainly in the genital area. Allegedly Ryakhovsky carried out necrophilic acts on his victims and stole their belongings. Ryakhovsky standing 6’5" tall and weighting 286 pounds, gaining him the nickname, The Hippo. Sergei Ryakhovsky died on January 21st 2005 from untreated tuberculosis while serving his life sentence in prison.

Sergei Ryakhovsky Serial Killer Profile

Serial Killer Sergei Ryakhovsky (aka) the Balashikha Ripper, The Hippopotamus, was active for 6 years between 1988-1993 , known to have ( 19 confirmed / 19 possible ) victims. This serial killer was active in the following countries: Russia

Sergei Ryakhovsky was born on December 29th 1962 in Balashikha, Moscow Oblast, Soviet Union. He had a physically defect. During his education he had academic, social or discipline problems including being teased or picked on.

Sergei Ryakhovsky a necrophile male citizen of Russia.

Prior to his spree he had killed, commited crimes, and served time in jail.

In 1988 (Age 25/26) Sergei Ryakhovsky started his killing spree, during his crimes as a serial killer he was known to rob, commit acts of necrophilia , torture , strangle , rape , mutilate, and murder his victims.

He was arrested on April 13th 1993 (Age 30), sentenced to death by firing squad at a maximum-security penal colony in Solikamsk, Perm Oblast, Russia. He was convicted on charges of murder and other possible charges during his lifetime.

Sergei Ryakhovsky died on January 21st 2005 (Age 42), cause of death: natural causes, untreated tuberculosis at a maximum-security penal colony in Solikamsk, Perm Oblast, Russia.

Profile Completeness: 62%

Sergei Ryakhovsky has been listed on Killer.Cloud since November of 2016 and was last updated 4 years ago.

Sergei Ryakhovsky a known:

( 651 killers ) serial killer.

The unlawful killing of two or more victims by the same offender(s), in separate events. Serial Killer as defined by the FBI at the 2005 symposium.

( 308 killers ) RAPIST

Rape is usually defined as having sexual intercourse with a person who does not want to, or cannot consent.

( 60 killers ) NECROPHILIAC

Necrophilia, also called thanatophilia, is a sexual attraction or sexual act involving corpses. Serial Killer Necrophiliacs have been known to have sex with the body of their victim(s).

( 89 killers ) TORTURER

Torture is when someone puts another person in pain. This pain may be physical or psychological. Tourturers touture their victims.

( 251 killers ) STRANGLER

Strangulation is death by compressing the neck until the supply of oxygen is cut off. Stranglers kill by Strangulation.

Sergei Ryakhovsky Serial Killer Profile:

Updated: 2019-06-30 collected by killer.cloud, 8 timeline events of serial killer sergei ryakhovsky.

The 8 dates listed below represent a timeline of the life and crimes of serial killer Sergei Ryakhovsky. A complete collection of serial killer events can be found on our Serial Killer Timeline .

Back to top Serial Killers Active During

The following serial killers were active during the same time span as Sergei Ryakhovsky (1988-1993).

Jose Antonio Rodriguez Vega 16 Victims during 2 Years

Tommy lynn sells 3 victims during 20 years, gary ridgway 49 victims during 19 years, jack harold jones 2 victims during 13 years, serial killers by active year, books that mention sergei ryakhovsky.

Kevin Smith

Serial killer stranglers.

Serial Killer Rapists

Sergey Kuznetsov

Butterfly skin.

Geraldine Fagan

Believing in russia.

Danny Schäfer

Freedom of religion or belief. anti-sect move....

100 of the Most Famous Serial Killers of All...

Stanley M. Burgess

The new international dictionary of pentecost....

External References

• Sergei Ryakhovsky on en.wikipedia.org , Retrieved on Sep 18, 2018 .
• Juan Ignacio Blanco , Sergei Vasilyevich RYAKHOVSKY on murderpedia.org , Retrieved on Sep 18, 2018 .
• Q372816 on www.wikidata.org , Retrieved on Oct 9, 2018 .

Sergei Ryakhovsky is included in the following pages on Killer.Cloud the Serial Killer Database

• #3 of 45[ Page 1 ] of Serial Killers with birthdays in December
• #10 of 60[ Page 1 ] of Serial Killer Necrophiliacs sorted by Confirmed Victims
• #10 of 29[ Page 1 ] of Serial Killers active in Russia
• #10 of 55[ Page 1 ] of Capricorn Serial Killers sorted by Confirmed Victims
• #11 of 89[ Page 1 ] of Serial Killer Torturers sorted by Confirmed Victims
• #27 of 250[ Page 2 ] of Serial Killer Stranglers sorted by Confirmed Victims
• #35 of 307[ Page 3 ] of Serial Killer Rapist sorted by Confirmed Victims
• #63 of 651[ Page 5 ] of serial killers sorted by Confirmed Victims
• #264 of 651[ Page 18 ] of serial killers sorted by Years Active
• #381 of 651[ Page 26 ] of serial killers sorted by Profile Completeness
• #516 of 651[ Page 35 ] of the A-Z List of Serial Killers

• Bahasa Indonesia
• Eastern Europe
• Moscow Oblast

Elektrostal

Elektrostal Localisation : Country Russia , Oblast Moscow Oblast . Available Information : Geographical coordinates , Population, Area, Altitude, Weather and Hotel . Nearby cities and villages : Noginsk , Pavlovsky Posad and Staraya Kupavna .

Information

Find all the information of Elektrostal or click on the section of your choice in the left menu.

• Update data

Elektrostal Demography

Information on the people and the population of Elektrostal.

Elektrostal Geography

Geographic Information regarding City of Elektrostal .

Elektrostal Distance

Distance (in kilometers) between Elektrostal and the biggest cities of Russia.

Elektrostal Map

Locate simply the city of Elektrostal through the card, map and satellite image of the city.

Elektrostal Nearby cities and villages

Elektrostal weather.

Weather forecast for the next coming days and current time of Elektrostal.

Elektrostal Sunrise and sunset

Find below the times of sunrise and sunset calculated 7 days to Elektrostal.

Elektrostal Hotel

Our team has selected for you a list of hotel in Elektrostal classified by value for money. Book your hotel room at the best price.

Elektrostal Nearby

Below is a list of activities and point of interest in Elektrostal and its surroundings.

Elektrostal Page

• Information /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#info
• Demography /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#demo
• Geography /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#geo
• Distance /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#dist1
• Map /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#map
• Nearby cities and villages /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#dist2
• Weather /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#weather
• Sunrise and sunset /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#sun
• Hotel /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#hotel
• Nearby /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#around
• Page /Russian-Federation--Moscow-Oblast--Elektrostal#page
• Terms of Use
• Copyright © 2024 DB-City - All rights reserved
• Change Ad Consent Do not sell my data

• Yekaterinburg
• Novosibirsk
• Vladivostok

• Tours to Russia
• Practicalities
• Russia in Lists

Rusmania • Deep into Russia

Out of the Centre

Savvino-storozhevsky monastery and museum.

Zvenigorod's most famous sight is the Savvino-Storozhevsky Monastery, which was founded in 1398 by the monk Savva from the Troitse-Sergieva Lavra, at the invitation and with the support of Prince Yury Dmitrievich of Zvenigorod. Savva was later canonised as St Sabbas (Savva) of Storozhev. The monastery late flourished under the reign of Tsar Alexis, who chose the monastery as his family church and often went on pilgrimage there and made lots of donations to it. Most of the monastery’s buildings date from this time. The monastery is heavily fortified with thick walls and six towers, the most impressive of which is the Krasny Tower which also serves as the eastern entrance. The monastery was closed in 1918 and only reopened in 1995. In 1998 Patriarch Alexius II took part in a service to return the relics of St Sabbas to the monastery. Today the monastery has the status of a stauropegic monastery, which is second in status to a lavra. In addition to being a working monastery, it also holds the Zvenigorod Historical, Architectural and Art Museum.

Belfry and Neighbouring Churches

Located near the main entrance is the monastery's belfry which is perhaps the calling card of the monastery due to its uniqueness. It was built in the 1650s and the St Sergius of Radonezh’s Church was opened on the middle tier in the mid-17th century, although it was originally dedicated to the Trinity. The belfry's 35-tonne Great Bladgovestny Bell fell in 1941 and was only restored and returned in 2003. Attached to the belfry is a large refectory and the Transfiguration Church, both of which were built on the orders of Tsar Alexis in the 1650s.  

To the left of the belfry is another, smaller, refectory which is attached to the Trinity Gate-Church, which was also constructed in the 1650s on the orders of Tsar Alexis who made it his own family church. The church is elaborately decorated with colourful trims and underneath the archway is a beautiful 19th century fresco.

Nativity of Virgin Mary Cathedral

The Nativity of Virgin Mary Cathedral is the oldest building in the monastery and among the oldest buildings in the Moscow Region. It was built between 1404 and 1405 during the lifetime of St Sabbas and using the funds of Prince Yury of Zvenigorod. The white-stone cathedral is a standard four-pillar design with a single golden dome. After the death of St Sabbas he was interred in the cathedral and a new altar dedicated to him was added.

Under the reign of Tsar Alexis the cathedral was decorated with frescoes by Stepan Ryazanets, some of which remain today. Tsar Alexis also presented the cathedral with a five-tier iconostasis, the top row of icons have been preserved.

Tsaritsa's Chambers

The Nativity of Virgin Mary Cathedral is located between the Tsaritsa's Chambers of the left and the Palace of Tsar Alexis on the right. The Tsaritsa's Chambers were built in the mid-17th century for the wife of Tsar Alexey - Tsaritsa Maria Ilinichna Miloskavskaya. The design of the building is influenced by the ancient Russian architectural style. Is prettier than the Tsar's chambers opposite, being red in colour with elaborately decorated window frames and entrance.

At present the Tsaritsa's Chambers houses the Zvenigorod Historical, Architectural and Art Museum. Among its displays is an accurate recreation of the interior of a noble lady's chambers including furniture, decorations and a decorated tiled oven, and an exhibition on the history of Zvenigorod and the monastery.

Palace of Tsar Alexis

The Palace of Tsar Alexis was built in the 1650s and is now one of the best surviving examples of non-religious architecture of that era. It was built especially for Tsar Alexis who often visited the monastery on religious pilgrimages. Its most striking feature is its pretty row of nine chimney spouts which resemble towers.

Plan your next trip to Russia

Ready-to-book tours.

Your holiday in Russia starts here. Choose and book your tour to Russia.

REQUEST A CUSTOMISED TRIP

Looking for something unique? Create the trip of your dreams with the help of our experts.