Critique of the classical theory of education crisis

The Classical Theory of Education Crisis is the default theory utilised by educational theorists for understanding the constitution and explanation of education crises in contemporary society. Following a brief outline of the concept of crisis, and the histiography of the notion of education crisis from the Second World War to the neoliberal recession of 1980-82, there is an outline of The Classical Theory of Education Crisis as most fully expressed in Madan Sarup’s classic Education, State and Crisis: A Marxist Perspective (1982). The key aspect of the Classical Theory is that education crises are derivative of economic crises. This is followed by the main event: critique of the Classical Theory. Its reliance on structuralist thought (with associated determinism, functionalism and reductionism) and the inflow of economics imperialism are some of its key deficiencies. The Conclusion outlines ground still to be covered and the need to move beyond the Classical Theory of Education Crisis.


INTRODUCTION
The 'credit crunch' and associated Great Recession of 2007-09 generated a vast literature on the nature, causes and explanation of crises in capitalism in general and the 2007-09 phenomena in particular. The Great Recession was variously viewed as a 'crisis of neoliberalism', a 'financial crisis', a 'banking crisis', a 'crisis of financialization', a 'crisis of capital' or 'capitalist crisis', or, more generally an 'economic crisis' and so on. Sylvia Walby's recent book, Crisis, outlines these and other forms of crisis constituting, and flowing from, the Great Recession (WALBY, 2015).
Significantly, the depth and severity of the crisis of 2007-09, and the ways that capitalist states reacted to it through cut-backs in education budgets and bouts of restructuring, led some educational theorists and researchers to focus on how economic crisis morphed into a sovereign debt crisis and thence a crisis for state education systems. In addition, and flowing from the capitalist crisis of 2007-09 and its associated literatures, there were also a number of academic interventions around the notion of education crisis.
This article focuses on this last aspect: the concept of education crisis. In particular, it outlines and critiques what could be called The Classical Theory of Education Crisis embedded within the seminal work of Madan Sarup in his Education, State and Crisis: A Marxist Perspective, produced within Marxist theory (SARUP, 1982). The importance of The Classical Theory of Education Crisis rests on the fact that it is the (largely unacknowledged) default theory of education crisis. Educational theorists and researchers exploring education crisis tend to base their ideas on the Classical Theory without recognition, and in doing this avoid theoretical problems associated with it. Delineating these problems constitutes the critique of the Classical Theory in this article.
The Classical Theory of Education Crisis is simultaneously a theory of the constitution of education crisisthe nature of education crisisand a theory, an explanation, of it. In order to progress understandings of the notion and phenomenon of education crisis, it is crucial to critique The Classical Theory of Education Crisis as the default theory of education crisis. This proceeds in the following manner. The opening section is a basic account of the concept of crisisan element often missing in analyses of education crisis. Section 2 provides a brief survey of writings on education crisis in the Anglophone world, focusing on the UK in particular, starting from the end of the post-War boom to the publication of Sarup's Education, State and Crisis in 1982. It also provides an embryonic account of The Classical Theory of Education Crisis, and indicates some early examples that push beyond it. Section 3 focuses on the most developed account of The Classical Theory of Education Crisis available today: Sarup's classic statement of 1982. This is followed by the main event: a critique of The Classical Theory of Education Crisis, its limitations, shortcomings and unfortunate implications and consequences. The Conclusion explores alternative starting points for the analysis of education crisis in the light of the shortcomings of the Classical Theory.

CRISIS
Etymologically the concept of 'crisis' comes from the Greek noun kritiki, and the Greek verb krineindenoting some decision, choice or judgement being made (PETERS, 2013, p. 199;GYFTOPOULOU and PARASKEVOPOULOU, 2016, p. 61), in order to "form an opinion, to criticize" (Gyftopoulou and Paraskevopoulou, 2016, p. 61).This outlook on crisis is often traced back to Hippocrates (HIPPOCRATES OF KOS, 1983.), as doctors are charged with the responsibility of making correct decisions and choices regarding the health and well-being of patients. In turn, doctors are also responsible for correct diagnoses of diseases and ailments, and effective monitoring of the patient following medical intervention. The 'crisis' point in disease, for Hippocrates, is a turning point in the strength of a disease: when it becomes clear that the patient is either on the road to recovery, or faces death, or at least severe debilitation (e.g. amputation of limbs). As Bill Dunn notes, invoking 'crisis' as starting point for social explanation means that recovery needs to be accounted for when this occurs (DUNN, 2014.). John Holloway, following Hippocrates, argues that 'crisis' designates: "A qualitative turning point, a break in the normal process of change, is a crisis. The original term 'crisis' is medical. In its original Greek meaning it referred to a turning point in an illness. (emphasis added)" (HOLLOWAY, 1992, p. 145). The crisis point is that moment when death or recovery hangs in the balance. Holloway argues that this approach to crisis, crisis as turning point, can also be applied to social scientific and historical studies, and that: … crisis does not simply refer to 'hard times', but to turning points. It directs attention to the discontinuities of history, to breaks in the path of development, ruptures in a pattern of movement, variations in the intensity of time. The concept of crisis implies that history is not smooth or predictable, but full of shifts in direction and periods of intensified change. (emphasis added) (HOLLOWAY, 1992, p. 146).
For Holloway, the concept of crisis is an indispensable aid to understanding social and historical change. Holloway's point that crisis "implies that history is not smooth or predictable" should also incorporate the notion that crises can recur: a singular crisis can appear to have reached a positive turning point only to move into a negative direction later on. Thus, although "…crisis is a period of intensified change which may lead one way or the other" (emphasis added) (HOLLOWAY, 1992, p. 146), there could be retrogression, a back-tracking and reoccurrence of the crisis. Of course, there is always room for debate about whether a single crisis or two separate crises is involved here. This is similar to whether a 'double-dip recession' comprises a single economic recession of two moments, or two separate recessions.
From its medical roots the notion of crisis can be applied to social phenomena, processes and developments. To say that these are in a state of crisis is to designate a situation as involving "imminent danger and high risk" (GAMBLE, 2009, p. 39). This makes quick decisions and interventions necessary, often "under pressure with very incomplete knowledge" which "can lead to very different results" (GAMBLE, 2009, p. 39).
De suas raízes médicas, a noção de crise pode ser aplicada a fenômenos, processos e desenvolvimentos sociais. Dizer que se encontram em estado de crise é designar uma situação como de "perigo iminente e alto risco" (GAMBLE, 2009, p. 39). Isto torna necessárias decisões e intervenções rápidas, muitas vezes "sob pressão com conhecimento incompleto" que "podem levar a resultados muitos diferentes" (GAMBLE, 2009, p. 39). Janet Roitman expanded considerably analysis of the idea of crisis in her book Anti-Crisis (ROITMAN, 2014). It is worth adding some of her points to the previous ones from Holloway. Roitman is interested in "the kinds of work the term "crisis" is or is not doing in the construction of narrative forms" (ROITMAN, 2014, p. 2-3). She is also concerned with how "crisis is constituted as an object of knowledge" (Roitman, 2014, p. 3). It aids our understanding of historical epochs, phenomena and situations. For Roitman, the concept of crisis allows us to do and think history; to produce historical analyses and textsto give a meaningful historical narrative. In particular, it allows the historian to designate what she calls 'moments of truth'which are typically designated as turning points in history. But Roitman adds more to the view of crisis advanced by Holloway. A summary is provided here. A key point for Roitman is that the idea of crisis invokes or conjures up critique. She argues that: Critique and crisis are cognates … crisis is the basis of social and critical theory. Being bound to its cognate (critique), the concept of crisis denotes the prevailing and fairly peculiar belief that history could be alienated in terms of philosophythat one could perceive a dissonance between historical events and representation of those events. Crisis-claims evoke a moral demand for a difference between the past and future (Roitman, 2014, p. 8).
Thus, a claim that such-and-such a societal state of affairs is one of crisis implies that things could be different, and better. The future could be better than the present or past, and then specific crises could be banished from the future once their roots are grasped. This is one reason why Roitman is against crisis: as the concept tends to have conservative features when read against capitalist reality. However, as Holloway indicates above, crisis can also point towards a 'beyond' by uncovering the fragilities of capitalism and by simultaneously opening cracks in the system, generating ideas for post-capitalist possibilities.
Roitman notes a number of other consequences of using the idea of crisis in social and historical explanation and analysis. First, quintessentially, it involves judgement, or rather a series of judgements. Judgements about whether a social situation constitutes a crisis; judgements about turning points, when those critical points are reached; judgments about the efficacy of interventions; judgements about success / failure / improvement; and final judgements about when a string of social developments flowing from the turning point are 'in the clear'when, for example, no further state intervention is necessary (e.g. quantitative easing to aid the recovery of the banking sector or the economy in general).
Secondly, crisis generates prognosis: accounts of 'what will happen next'. This could be seen when the capitalist crisis reached its peak in the autumn of 2008: the newspapers, the Economist and TV economics pundits were breathless in debates on what was likely to happen. There was much excited speculation about the prospects for neoliberalism (the leading mode of capitalist rule of the last 35 years), and indeed about the future of capitalism itself. The Financial Times ran a special series of articles on 'The Future of Capitalism' (in March 2009) and The Guardian did something similar with its 'Capitalism in Crisis' articles from January -April 2009. 3 Janet Roitman expandiu consideravelmente a análise sobre a ideia de crise em seu livro Anti-Crise (ROITMAN, 2014). Vale a pena somar alguns de seus pontos aos anteriores de Holloway. Roitman está interessada nos "tipos de trabalho em que o termo "crise" faz ou não parte da construção de formas narrativas" (ROITMAN, 2014, p. 2-3). Ela também está preocupada em como a "crise se constitui como objeto de conhecimento" (Roitman, 2014, p. 3). Isto auxilia em nossa compreensão de épocas, fenômenos e situações históricas. Para Roitman, o conceito de crise nos permite fazer e pensar a história; a produzir análises e textos históricospara dar entendimento a uma narrativa histórica. Em particular, isto permite ao historiador designar o que ela denomina 'momentos de verdade'que são tipicamente designados como pontos de inflexão na história.
Fourthly, and often relating to the first aspect, a 'sociology of error' typically erupts. This involves attempts to pinpoint "what went wrong" and "… historical significance is discerned in terms of epistemological or ethical failure" (Roitman, 2014, p. 9). Again, examples could readily be found in social science literatures regarding the economic crisis of 2007-09.
Fifthly, flowing from the previous point, this may also involve ad hoc denunciations of individuals and groups, argues Roitman. For example: blaming investment bankers and Federal Reserve officials, the Bank of England, the ratings agencies or the UK Financial Services Authority.
A sixth point is that: …the term "crisis" signifies a diagnostic of the present; it implies a certain telos because it is inevitably, though most often implicitly, directed towards a norm. Evoking crisis entails reference to a norm because it requires a comparative state for judgement: crisis compared to what? (Roitman, 2014, p. 14).
This comparative moment in crisis discourse involves viewing the advent of crisis against a background of 'normal functioning' of a social system, institution, group or phenomenon. Thus, built into the concept of crisis is the notion of non-crisis; the view that the system, institution etc. ought to be functioning in a certain way (e.g. full employment, stable financial system), but it is not. This in turn implies that the future should be adjusted to meet the norm, which entails a functionalist and conservative approach to society and social theory.
A seventh point is that the idea of crisis is a narrative device: its invocation is implicated in 'telling a story' about social affairs. Dragging the idea of 'crisis' into analyses of social affairs is part of attempts at understanding and explanation through giving coherent accounts, or stories of events.
Finally, "post hoc analyses in terms of crisis necessarily entail an assumed teleology" (ROITMAN, 2014, p. 94), she notes. The example Roitman gives is that the case of using subprime mortgages building up to the 2007-09 economic crisis shows how the economy should function, i.e. only mortgages for recipients who are able to finance them should be allowed. There should be greater and more effective bank regulation, and so on. Thus, the future should not contain the contradictions, shortcomings and tensions of the past if normal, crisis-free, development is pursued. This final point merges into point five above regarding crisis evoking a norm. Of course, for John Holloway, crisis is an integral feature of capitalist society: it can never be banished by canny regulation and fine-tuning.
The main argument that Roitman advances against using the idea of crisis, and why she is against crisis, is that crisis can only be observed as a 'blind spot' in social and historical analysis. A crisis has no social content in itself; rather it is constituted by social events, phenomena and trends that give it substance. Therefore, as such, it must be argued for, demonstrated by processes of evidence-gathering, analysis and ultimately persuasion, thereby necessarily involving rhetorical and political elements in its constitution. Thus, when crisis is brought forth by a social theorist, politician, economist, media commentator and other interested parties, what is important is "the ways in which it allows certain questions to be asked while others are foreclosed" (Roitman, 2014, p. 94).
For Roitman, crisis discourse has conservative implications (as noted previously), but she is ambivalent here, as crisis can also generate thinking beyond existing situations. She argues that: By excavating the crisis term in the critique-and-crisis cognate, by making their coconstitution, I hope to draw attention to the means by which crisis serves as a distinction or transcendental placeholder in the occupation of an immanent world … [and] crisis serves as a transcendental placeholder because it is a means for signifying contingency; it is a term that allegedly allows one to think the "otherwise"' (Roitman, 2014, p. 9).
On this basis, notes Roitman, 5 crisis is an historical "super-concept" (Oberbegriffe) (ROITMAN, 2014, p. 10). It "establishes conditions of possible histories and to indicate how it is a blind spot in social science narrative constructions" (Roitman, 2014, p. 11). The idea of crisis shows "a purportedly observable chasm between the "real" … and the fictitious, erroneous or illogical departure from the real" (Roitman, 2014, p. 11). Yet Roitman is careful to argue that this does not mean that crises are denied, or that they have no reality as such. Instead, she argues that: The point is to take note of the effects of the claim to crisis, to be attentive to the effects of our very accession to that judgement. Crisis engenders certain forms of critique, which politisize interest groups. This is a politics of crisis. (original emphasis) (Roitman, 2014, p. 12).
The politics of crisis points towards the essential contestability of the idea of crisis itself. 6 Paradoxically, crisis, in itself, has no substance opening it up for a deeper contestation and constitution. It is constituted by particular contingencies, yet it aids knowledge production. These contingencies, and varieties of perspectives on them, generate disagreement, combative rhetoric and claim-and-counter-claim in the pursuit of knowledge production and the search for meaning. Thus: "Crisis is a blind spot that enables the production of knowledge" (my emphasis) (Roitman, 2014, p. 39), in this adversarial din. Hence: … if we take crisis to be a blind spot, or a distinction, which makes certain things visible and others invisible, it is merely an a priori. Crisis is claimed, but it remains a latency; it is never itself explained because it is necessarily further reduced to other elements such as capitalism, economy, neoliberalism, finance, politics, culture, subjectivity (Roitman, 2014, p. 39).

THE AGE OF EDUCATION CRISES
From the end of the Second World War to the end of the post-War boom in 1973-74, education systems in the advanced capitalist countries expanded significantly, especially higher education systems. Developing capitalist countries were urged to modernise and expand their education systems, setting them on the road to economic growth. These developments were underpinned theoretically by an appeal to human capital theory: investments in education and training would yield higher returns for businesses and states and higher wages for workers, it was argued.
The end of the post-War boom in 1973-74 altered this scenario in two key respects. First, there were pressures on state finances in some of the advanced capitalist countries such that cuts to education funding came increasingly to the fore. Secondly, there were significant increases in youth unemployment in these countriesespecially in the UKand this led to critiques of education and training systems amongst Radical Right and employer organisations.
In return, Left educational analysts attempted to understand the perceived 'crisis in education'. In the first instance, this meant challenging the critiques of the Radical Right and restructurings of education and training systems based on the interests of capital over labour. The claims that education and training institutions were not preparing young people for the 'world of work' adequately were examined critically. Work by Simon Frith (FRITH, 1978;FRITH AND BUCKLEY, 1976;FRITH AND BUCKLEY, 1978) included empirical investigations into employers' perceptions of young people and schools in Coventry allied to Marxist analysis of the crisis of youth unemployment. Buckley's data on interviewing personnel managers was important to this enterprise (BUCKLEY, 1977). The work of Dan Finn and his associates (FINN, 1978;FINN, GRANT AND JOHNSON, 1977;FINN, GRANT AND JOHNSON, 1978) was particularly significant as these writers moved beyond the crisis of youth unemployment to analyse education in its relation to the economic and political crisis in the UK in the mid-1970s. They saw the education crisis of the 1970s as partly a result of the crisis of social democracy and the breakdown of the post-war consensus on economic, social and education policies resulting from end of the post-war boom and economic crisis (FINN, GRANT AND JOHNSON, 1978, p. 145). Finn, Grant and Johnson therefore focused on the Labour Party and how social democratic ideology was weakened in the 1970s within it, thereby developing a critique of Labour's education policies and outlook from a Left perspective.
The turning point in the UK was the Labour Prime Minister's "Ruskin Speech" of October 1976 (CALLAGHAN, 1976), where James Callaghan gave succour to employer criticisms of schools and school-leavers and initiated a 'Great Debate' on education. For Finn, Grant and Johnson, the education crisis was at heart a political crisis of social democracy crafted within the Labour Party. Nevertheless, they saw that: "The crisis of the educational sector is bound up with the overall crisis of the economy and the State" (emphasis added) (FINN, GRANT AND JOHNSON, 1978, p. 187).
Finn re-emphasised this point, whilst also arguing (along Althusserian lines of relative autonomy) that the education crisis was "a specifically regional crisis" which could not be reduced to cutbacks for state education or "breakdown of consensus", but must be viewed in terms of its "own social base" (FINN, 1978, p. 15). Confusedly, Finn had argued earlier that the crisis in education could "not be reduced to the cuts" but was essentially concerned with "arguments about the particular forms of labour power to be produced"as if the transformation of labour power into labour in the capitalist labour process was not associated with economic phenomena, and was relevant purely to a crisis of the education sector or system per se (FINN, 1978, p. 1). In their 1977 paper, Finn, Grant and Johnson stressed that ideologies can be viewed as being of especial significance in the construction of educational crisis. Thus, they argued, the critique of educational crisis must be engaged with analysis of the ideological struggles within the "educational region" (FINN, GRANT AND JOHNSON, 1977, p. 2). Towards the end of their 1978 article, Finn, Grant and Johnson tried to have it both ways: the education crisis "has its determinations in the general crisis", but it "is also a regional one" (original emphasis) (Finn, Grant and Johnson, 1977, p. 187). Their Althusserian structuralist perspective seemed to be pulling them in opposite directions.
It was left to the Marxist historian of education Brian Simon in a series of articles in the mid-1970s to provide an analysis that situated education crisis more squarely in relation to economic crisis. Writing from the perspective of the Communist Party of Great Britain in the party's journal, Marxism Today, Simon attempted to indicate links between the ideas of Karl Marx, the economic crisis following the collapse of the post-War boom and the crisis in education (SIMON, 1977a). The importance of the work of Brian Simon is that he anticipated The Classical Theory of Education Crisis in many ways and outlined its key constituents prior to Madan Sarup's classic text.
For Simon, difficulties, problems and issues in three interlinked social spheres welded together in the mid-1970s constituted the education crisis: the economic, fiscal and administrative field; the field of ideology; and the political arena (SIMON, 1977a, p. 193). Simon began explaining education crises by noting that due to the instability of capitalism, the "impossibility of planning in the light of domination by the market" (SIMON, 1977a, p. 195) and the "anarchic conditions of production" (Simon, 1977a, p. 195) and no overall conception of social developmentthen these phenomena are "reflected in the field of education which is particularly vulnerable to education crises" (SIMON, 1977a, p. 195). Therefore, on Simon's analysis, education crises flow from economic crises that are grounded in the instabilities and anarchy of capitalist production and markets. This perspective is a key hallmark of The Classical Theory of Education Crisis: education crises are derivative of economic ones. Simon made this clear when he argued that government pressures to reduce expenditure on education in the mid-1970s were a "direct reflection of the current economic crisis of capitalism" (SIMON, 1977a, p. 195).
The second step in Simon's outline of education crisis was to point towards the fiscal crisis of the capitalist statewhich mediates and transfigures the economic crisis as education crisis. Due to the downturn in tax receipts as a result of economic crisis, with rising unemployment and a slump in demand, the national and local state system finds itself in a financial fix.
Related to the state's fiscal crisis are cuts in education expenditure. This is the third element in The Classical Theory of Education Crisis. Simon noted the massive cuts to education spending in the UK in the mid-1970s (SIMON, 1977a, p. 196). He also pinpointed some of the effects of these cuts on schools and colleges: e.g. increased pupilteacher ratios and larger classes, and reduced grants for books. Simon pursued this theme again in relation to the economic downturn of 1979-80, the most severe recession since the Second World War for the UK, yielding massive de-industrialisation under the Thatcher regime (SIMON, 1998b, p. 10-12).
The fourth element of the Classical Theory is state restructuring. Simon explored local government reorganisation as an example of this, but the Labour governments of in the late-1970s (beleaguered by International Monetary Fund (IMF) diktats for state budget reductions on the one hand, and trade union exasperation and struggles on the other), had no stomach for this. Some of the calls for more systemic restructuring of state education to further capitalist accumulation and social control by the Radical Right were concretised in education policy following the victory by the Conservative party under Margaret Thatcher in 1979. Simon took up this theme with greater cause following the Conservative victory in the 1979 general election and more determined efforts to restructure education (in his 1984 and 1987 articles).
The fifth aspect of education crisis for The Classical Theory of Education Crisis, resistance to budget cuts and state restructuring of education, is less obvious in SIMON (1977a). Rather, he proposed that struggles to transform education in an anti-capitalist and socialist direction should be strengthened, and much of the article is devoted to this enterprise and how it can be guided by the thoughts and politics of Karl Marx on economy, politics and education. In another article in the same year, Simon explored education as an arena of class struggle and resistance to state restructuring along capitalist lines in more depth (SIMON, 1977b). He also took this theme up a few years later in light of the recession of 1979-80 (Simon, 1980a and1980b).
There is one further form of crisis noted by Simon in his 1977a article that has relevance for education crisis: ideological crisis. This is constituted by struggles over the nature, aims and purposes of education in society. However, Simon noted that there are always such struggles: they are not confined to periods of capitalist economic crisis. Nevertheless, they can be intensified and heightened in such timesthough there is nothing specific to these crises as flowing from the other elements noted above. Simon takes up this issue again a few years later (Simon, 1980a and1980b).
This work of Brian Simon can be viewed as a proto-Classical Theory of Education Crisis. It anticipated the more fully worked out theory of Madan Sarup. In addition, it also indicates how the default mode was to fall back on this theory before its fullest expression.
After Brian Simon, a few other Marxist educational theorists and researchers took up the challenge of theorising education crisis in the light of the recession of 1980-82. Cole and Skelton's Blind Alley: Youth in a Crisis of Capital (COLE AND SKELTON, 1980a) was a spirited text that provided a searing critique of state education, training and labour market institutions for youth in Britain during the early 1980s recession and the dawn of Thatcher's regime. As the title suggests, youth were facing hard times in a crisis of capital: capital's crisis was the starting point for analysis. Furthermore, many of the articles were framed in terms of aspects of The Classical Theory of Education Crisis. The theme of state restructuring of educationa key item in the Classical Theorywas central to most of the articles in the collection. This was especially clear in the contributions by Cole and Skelton COLE AND SKELTON, 1980b) and HEXTALL (1980). However, the importance of this edited collection for a theory of education crisis can be found mainly in the article by Simon FRITH (1980). Frith opened up possibilities for viewing crises of education as constituting crises for capital when the social production of labour power reaches a crisis point within educational institutions as they interact with the youth labour market. This analysis moves beyond The Classical Theory of Education Crisis, and future work will illustrate the importance of Frith's breakthrough, but in general this book ran along the track of the Classical Theory.
The same could be said for Unpopular Education, published a year later than Cole and Skelton's collection, and written by the Education Group of researchers in the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies at the University of Birmingham (CCCS). 9 When the CCCS Education Group turned to exploring relationships between the recession of the early 1980s and education they took a straightforwardly Classical Theory approach. 10 They provided a brief economic history of Britain from the 1950s ending with the education cuts as derivative of British economic problems flowing from end of the post-war boom.
What is interesting is that the Education Group's analysis is a 'knowing' one: the 'economy' functions as a "standby explanation or thread behind education policy changes" 11 in discourses on education expenditure cuts, they noted. They problematized this aspect of the Classical Theory by indicating how employers' discourses on the quality of compulsory education (for 5-16 year old) leavers regarding poor work and social skills and work attitudes generated calls (from these employers and from politicians of major parties) for schools to be restructured in line with labour-power requirements. Furthermore, the CCCS Education Group mirrored Simon's notion of ideological crisis (SIMON, 1977a) in education when they put forward a neo-Gramscian 'crisis of hegemony' in education following the demise of the post-war social democratic settlement. 12 9 CCCS Education Group, 1981. 10 See CCCs Education Group, 1981, pp. 169-173. 11 CCCS Education Group, 1981, p. 172. 12 CCCS Education Group, 1981 Depois de Brian Simon, alguns outros teóricos e pesquisadores da educação marxista aceitaram o desafio de teorizar a crise da educação à luz da recessão de 1980-82. Beco sem saída: Juventude em uma crise do capital (COLE e SKELTON, 1980a) é um texto espirituoso que forneceu uma crítica contundente à educação estatal, às instituições de treinamento voltadas para o mercado de trabalho para jovens na Grã-Bretanha durante a recessão do início dos anos de 1980 e o início do regime de Thatcher. Como o título sugere, os jovens estavam enfrentando tempos de crise um momento difícil na crise do capital: a crise do capital foi o ponto de partida para a análise. Além disso, muitos dos artigos foram enquadrados em termos de aspectos da Teoria Clássica da Crise da Educação. O tema da reestruturação da educação estatalum item fundamental na Teoria Clássicafoi central para a maioria dos artigos da coleção. Isso ficou especialmente claro nas contribuições de Cole e Skelton (COLE E SKELTON, 1980b) e HEXTALL (1980). Contudo, a importância desta coleção editada para a teoria da crise da educação pode ser encontrada no artigo de Simon FRITH (1980 Interessante é perceber que a análise do Grupo de Educação é 'conhecida': a 'economia' funciona como uma "explicação provisória ou fio condutor por trás das mudanças na política educacional" 15 em discursos sobre cortes nas despesas com educação, observaram. Eles problematizaram este aspecto da Teoria Clássica, indicando como os discursos dos empregadores sobre a qualidade da educação obrigatória (de 5 a 16 anos), no que se refere ao trabalho, e as habilidades sociais e atitudes de trabalho deficientes, geraram apelos (desses empregadores e de políticos dos principais partidos) para que as escolas sejam reestruturadas de acordo com os requisitos de força de trabalho. Além disso, o Grupo de Educação do CCCS espelhou a noção de Simon de crise ideológica (SIMON, 1977a) na educação quando propôs uma 'crise de hegemonia' neo-Gramsciana na educação após o fim do acordo socialdemocrata do pós-guerra. 16 13 CCCS Grupo de Educação, 1981. 14 Ver em CCCS Grupo de Educação 1981, p. 169-173. 15 Grupo de Educação CCCS, 1981, p. 172. 16 CCCS Grupo de Educação, 1981 Yet the CCCS Education Group moved beyond the Classical Theory in their analysis with a chapter on the rise of the Manpower Services Commission (MSC). 17 This chapter dovetailed with Frith's account (1980) of the MSC as an organisation ostensibly committed to enhancing the labour power quality of young workers. One outcome of the MSC's work was an increase in the budget for post-compulsory education and training provision, or 'capitalist training' as the CCCS Education put it. 18 Thus, whilst the restructuring of further education colleges in England (with their new mission to provide social and life skills courses as an element of training for unemployed youth) was in line with the Classical Theory of Education Crisis as expounded in the next section, increasing expenditure for vocational further education was not.
One of the CCCS Education Group writers was Dan Finn. In an article in 1982, Finn started off by reiterating the story of state restructuring of vocational further education colleges and the role the MSC played in this. Additionally, he built on the work of Frith (1980), indicating how the social production of labour power in capitalist schools and colleges was a crisis for capital: these institutions were inadequate in terms of the subordination of labour and labour power preparation. For representatives of capital (personnel managers, trainers, CEOs etc.), it was not just that young people were coming out of these institutions with 'inadequate' skills and competences; they had poor work attitudes. These educational institutions were in crisis as labour power producers; and this was a crisis of education for capital. Finn does not put this argument across as clearly as this, but his analysis implies it. It was not surprising that Finn built on the work of Frith (1980); the two of them had worked together previously in the Conference of Socialist Economists and the Open University. What this shows is that there were some critical educational theorists and researchers trying to work beyond the Classical Theory of Education Crisis, even though they did not acknowledge directly the existence of this primal outlook which was there in embryonic form in Simon's article (1977a). But even people like Finn were ultimately wedded to the Classical Theory of Education Crisis. Finn argued that the crisis in education "…was in large part structured and precipitated by a labour process crisis" (FINN, 1982, p. 51). Thus: the education crisis was a result, and could be explained by, economic crisis; specifically, for Finn, a crisis of the capitalist labour process.
What has this section indicated? First of all, it has shown how Brian Simon developed significantly The Classical Theory of Education Crisis. He crafted it in embryonic form, mainly in a single article (SIMON, 1977a). It also illustrated that the Classical Theory was the default theory for understanding education crisis for other writers; they relied on aspects of this theory for the analysis of education. Thirdly, this section suggested that a few education researchers and theorists sought to move beyond the Classical Theory, even if they did not give it recognition.
The next section focuses on Sarup's Education, State and Crisis of 1982, which is still, to this date, the fullest expression of The Classical Theory of Education Crisis. It is the view within which most theorists and researchers on education crisis still operate.

THE CLASSICAL THEORY OF EDUCATION CRISIS
Following on from the 1980-81 recession, Madan Sarup produced his Education, State and Crisis: A Marxist Perspective (SARUP, 1982). Sarup's book is the first substantial attempt to grasp the nature of crisis in education since the end of the post-War boom.
For Sarup: "…the crisis must be seen in terms of a crisis of capital and that the source of the crisis lies within the contradictions of the capitalist system itself" (SARUP, 1982, p. 10).
Thus: he assumes from the outset that crisis in education is derivative. It is a spill-over or second-hand crisis, reliant upon the main event, which is basically economic in form and content.
Sarup goes on to show the aetiology of the crisis in education. First, state expenditure comes under attack. This is partly due to a drain on state revenue resulting from shortfalls in taxes on profits, consumption and labour. Secondly, there is an attack on 'unproductive' workers in the state sector: these are perceived as a liability and indulgence in times of stress for productive, value-creating private profit-producing enterprises (SARUP, 1982, p. 110-111). Hence: "Cuts in public expenditure become necessary because state financing reduces the amount of money available for accumulation and profits and this inevitably intensifies the crisis" (SARUP, 1982, p. 111).
It is argued by representatives of capital that state expenditure 'crowds out' investment in value-producing private enterprises and during times of crisis this is deepened, therefore cuts are required. This intensifies the crisis, argues Sarup, as demand is hit upon thousands of public sector workers losing their jobs.
A third aspect of education crisis in contemporary capitalism is restructuring by the capitalist state. Sarup addressed "The restructuring of state education" in some detail (SARUP, 1982, p. 73-76). According to Sarup, the state does not just restructure institutions that come within its orbit; it also innovates, and changes agendas and priorities in order to reengineer the social relations of production in general and the social relations of capitalist education systems in particularin favour of capital over labour. The aim is to make the representatives of capital and the drive for capital accumulation stronger visà-vis the needs, interests and desires of workers. Hence: The crisis in education can only be understood in the context of state intervention. The current controversies in educationthe attack on progressivism, the stress on work-socialization in the new agencies and training programmes, the centralization of power, the more assertive role of the Department of Education and Science and its closer supervision of the education service and the curriculumare all symptomatic of an attempt to mobilize countertendencies, to restructure capital relations. (emphasis added) (Sarup, 1982, p. 111).
Fourthly, during a crisis of capital (and hence of education), the state is especially concerned with attempting to ensure that educational expenditure and policies are particularly aimed at the social production of labour-power. This is expressed in the drive to vocationalise education and to forge stronger ties between education, training and the world of workincluding new training programmes for unemployed youth and work experience programmes for schoolchildren.
The "cuts" are made in such a way that expenditure is as functional as possible for capital. This is why there is an attempt to "improve" the fit between schools and industry, to make education "economically relevant" (SARUP, 1982, p. 112).
These measures can also be viewed as an aspect of a drive for a deepening social control of young people: keeping them 'off the streets', with greater surveillance and tracking of their job finding strategies. New methods for controlling 'disruptive' and 'delinquent' youth are devised. Of course, some of these measures and policies will involve specific increases in state expenditure, but they are perceived as a price well worth paying for herding youth into the capitalist labour market with honed labour-power attributes.
There is a fifth aspect, noted by Sarup throughout his book, and re-emphasised towards the end: resistance to processes of cuts and restructuring. For Sarup, this resistance to specific cuts and restructuring in education (by teachers, trade unions, students, and women's groups, etc.) (SARUP, 1982, p. 114), is underpinned by resistance to capitalist schooling as labour power production per se, especially on the part of school students. Thus: "… schools not only reproduce the social relations of production, they also reproduce forms of resistance. Many pupils develop a characteristic resistance to the overt aims of schooling; teachers, also, struggle within their work places". (original emphasis) (SARUP, 1982, p. 113-114).
Sarup concludes his book with a brief foray into the difficult question of constructing an effective opposition to capitalist schooling. This is particularly important for him at times when the state is intervening in education during a period of crisis. His strategy is that the "teacher should be thinking, collectively, about the politics of learning and teaching" (SARUP, 1982, p. 114) and working towards what a socialist education might be.
A final point is that crises of economy and education have (largely negative) consequences for gender divisions and racism in education and economy. Women and ethnic minorities suffer disproportionately in times of crisis. Thus, Sarup devotes chapter 7 to "Women in education" and chapter 8 to "Race, imperialism and education".
The key point should not be forgotten throughout Sarup's analysis, which is that: "The educational crisis, then, is not specific; it is constituted by the general crisis of production. (emphasis added)" (SARUP, 1982, p. 111).
However, he provides only a brief outline of the nature of capitalist crisis which is embedded within chapter 5 on "The increase in state intervention" (SARUP, 1982, p. 55-56).
Sarup provides considerably more detail on the nature of the capitalist state in contemporary society. Because the state can be taken to be a capitalist state, for Sarup, then state intervention during a period of crisis invariably seeks to bolster, refine and develop capitalist schooling: schooling based on the perceived requirements of capital accumulation, with special reference to labour-power requirements. For Sarup, state education policies during a crisis should only be taken as "…real … but only surface appearances" (original emphasis) (SARUP, 1982, p. -109), for: Underlying the appearancesthe purpose of a Marxist analysis is to reveal the underlying reality beneath the outer manifestationsthere is the reality of a crisis in capitalism. Discussions about education, therefore, can be understood only when related to the economic crisis and the present conjuncture in which the state is playing an increasingly interventionist role (Sarup, 1982, p. 109).
Thus, time-and-time again, Sarup reminds us that the crisis is not essentially an educational one. Rather, a crisis in capital accumulation becomes a crisis for education as the capitalist state cuts, shapes and restructures the education system for the goal of capital accumulation. The crisis of education is a derivative affair.

CRITIQUE OF THE CLASSICAL THEORY OF EDUCATION CRISIS
The Classical Theory of Education Crisis still informs the main ways in which education crises are thought about and the political responses and strategies resulting from such analyses. Attempts to understand education crises flowing from the 2007-09 capitalist crisis drew heavily from the Classical Theory, but without recognition. Sarup's account of education crisis is still very much the standard one, even if there is little acknowledgement of that. It appears to be the default analysis for many Left education researchers and theorists. This may be because it is fairly straightforward and appears to chime with the practicalities of cuts and restructuring in education: the capitalist state brings in austerity measures for education and seeks to tape education to capitalist imperatives and goalsand workers and students resist. So, what's wrong with it?
Before getting onto this, it is necessary to state that it would be foolhardy to conflate Madan Sarup's Education, State and Capital with The Classical Theory of Education Crisis. The aim here is to critique the essential elements of this theory, not to point out shortcomings in Sarup's 1982 book per se. Other writers, education activists and commentators and academics from the educational Left commonly fall back on this theory. That is a key point. Hence it is best to get to the root, to be radical, in the critique of The Classical Theory of Education Crisis. (SARUP, 1982,) focused on formal educational institutions (largely state-financed schools). However, the establishment of radical, and alternative forms of education (non-state, democratic forms of schooling, cooperative schooling, various forms of non-formal and informal education, radical, anticapitalist education) may pose a 'crisis' for state education institutions if they are seen as the future. They may appear as appealing, dynamic and interesting (for students, teachers and parents and the wider community) learning spaces, as well as being useful for progressive social change and pluralistic community development. Karl Marx argued that schools should be state-financed but not state controlled (SIMON, 1977a). Students, teachers, and representatives from the local community should control education. This is different from the present UK Conservative party Academy and Free School movement, where the future (and increasingly the present) is state-financed schools controlled by business interests in such ways that state revenue supporting these schools can be transformed into private profit.
A second problem arising specifically from Sarup's analysis is what could be called the "Disaggregation -Aggregation Problem". Sarup largely sticks to state-financed schools in his account, though there are some nods towards higher education. Some on the educational Left, such as Patrick Ainley, have, for many years emphasised dangers in reading "schools' for 'education". Analyses resulting from this stance are truncated, and particular problems faced by young people as they flow through the education system, from nursery-primary-secondary-post-compulsory-university education (and other transitional forms) are harder to uncover or grasp. It is also likely to have political consequences; efforts to critique, challenge and change existing capitalist education are split institutionally. Such disaggregation, the wilful splitting of 'education' into various stages, also plays into the hands of those trade unionists who want to maintain the status quo anteseparate trade unions for schools and post-school institutions. Education activists in England such as Hank Roberts have for many years advocated and struggled for one big education union.
On the other hand, to argue for aggregationfrom a theoretical perspective, also has its problems. There may be crises in one sector of education, but not in others. Thus, in the 1982 education crisis that Sarup addressed, spending on higher education and schools was cut whilst funding flowing into further education colleges was expanded. This was primarily to support provision for courses for the young unemployed, such as various social and life skills provision. It could be argued that theoretical (or politico-organizational) aggregationlooking at capitalist education as an institutionally related wholeis likely to camouflage crises in different sectors, and furthermore not to take into account political fears and concerns of teachers and students in those sectors.
Thirdly, although I call the theory of education crisis flowing from the work of Sarup the classical theory it should be borne in mind that in the UK context at least, this theory only has validity since the end of the Second World War. The work of Vincent Carpentier indicates this (CARPENTIER, 2003(CARPENTIER, , 2006a(CARPENTIER, , 2006b(CARPENTIER, , and 2009. Exploring the relationships between Kondratiev long wave economic cycles and education expenditure in the UK, but with some comparative data from France and the USA, Carpentier found that up to the end of the Second World War education funding was increased when economic downturn ensued. After 1945 the situation was reversed: economic recession was followed by retrenchment in education fundingin line with The Classical Theory of Education Crisis. Historically, education expenditure in the major capitalist countries grew substantially in the long Post-War Boom. When this came to an end in 1973-74 the classical theory of education crisis asserted itself with a vengeance. After 1973, education expenditure in the UK grew more slowly in absolute terms, with expenditure per student in higher education coming under particular strain.
With these considerations in view, we now turn to the critique of The Classical Theory of Education Crisis. This starts out from its foundation, that education crises are derivative of economic ones.
All other substantial shortcomings of the Classical Theory flow from this point.
Levando em conta estas considerações, nos voltamos agora para a crítica da Teoria Clássica da Crise da Educação. This starting point undermines educational theory (sociology of education, philosophy of education etc.). It trivialises, elides and avoids the notion that there might be, or could be, education crises that do not have origins in the economy. It excludes essentially education crises per se, thereby cutting off possible lines of inquiry and theoretical development. It forecloses other theoretical possibilities, as Roitman would have it (ROITMAN, 2014). But this starting point, that education crises are only ever spill-overs from economic ones, generates worse consequences and implications than this.
The first is economics imperialism. 21 In the case of The Classical Theory of Education Crisis, what is going on in the economic sphere is held to be more significant in terms of education crisis than any developments in the education system itself. Ironically, Madan Sarup was more widely known as a philosopher and sociologist than economist. For economics imperialism, it is economists rather than philosophers, sociologists, or historians or psychologists of education that are deemed to be more useful and qualified in explaining education crises. Thus, when the Journal of Education ran its special issue on the crisis and education in 2010, the economist Andrew Gamble was brought in to 'set the scene' in the Introduction (GAMBLE, 2010). This is all-of-a-piece with economics imperialism. For Kuorikoski and Lehtinen, economics imperialism: "…refers to the application of (mainstream) economic methods to the study of phenomena outside the traditional domain of economics" (KUORIKOSKI AND LEHTINEN, 2010, p. 348).
Economics imperialism does not necessarily mean just mainstream, neoclassical economics dominating other academic fields. Gamble was coming at education crisis from the antineoliberal Left.
Following Mäki (2009), Kuorikoski and Lehtinen make a distinction between economics imperialism and economics expansionism. The latter expands the field of economics by including more types of phenomena that can be explained by economics. For Mäki, economics imperialism operates differently to this: it is a type of economics expansionism where explanations of phenomena residing outside of the field of economics are viewed as essentially economic in nature. The Classical Theory of Education Crisis seems to be consonant with Mäki's conception of economics imperialism: the explanandum (that which is to be explained, the education crisis) derives from an explanans (that which does the explaining) that originates from the economic sphere. In practice, commentators on economics imperialism typically conflate Mäki's economics expansionism / imperialism. Mäki made further distinctions between an imperialism of standing (where economics is assumed to have higher prestige and has more significant academic power than other social sciences); an imperialism of style (more rigorous standards and methods of inquiry); and imperialism of scope (economics can explain more facets of human behaviour than other social sciences) (MÄKI, 2009, p. 354). Regarding the first of these, imperialism of standing, Lazear argued that the premier position of economics amongst the social sciences was due to its being the closest social science to the natural sciences; specifically, it was a 'genuine science' because it was more like physics in its rigour and methods than any other social science, especially in regard to its incorporation of mathematics (LAZEAR, 1999). Ben Fine notes an Old Economics Imperialism that has its origins in the 1930s, and a newer version arriving in the 1990s based on the notion of: "…market imperfections in which informational asymmetries are brought to the fore in order to explain why markets might clear at Pareto-inefficient levels, why they might not clear, and why they may be absent altogether" (FINE, 2000, p. 14).
Exploring these issues involves making inroads into psychology and sociology in particular in order to include consumer behaviour and non-market activities. Kurt Rothschild provides a stronger definition of economics imperialism, as: "Economic Imperialism is the idea of some economists that the methodology of neoclassical economics has superior scientific qualities and should be adopted by most or all social sciences" (ROTHSCHILD, 2008, p. 723).
Rothschild argued that what all forms of economics imperialism typically have in common is that the "economic method" is deemed to be superior to other social scientific methods by mainstream economist practitioners of the dismal science. He notes that economics imperialism has its roots in the work of American economist Gary Becker, especially The Economic Approach to Human Behaviour (BECKER, 1976), where Becker explored a range of human behaviours that overlapped with sociological concerns, such as consumer behaviour, family, marriage, crime, altruism, discrimination and fertility. Fine noted that economists had long sought to colonise other social sciences (FINE, 2000). Gilead indicated that economics imperialism's strength and development in educational theory and research gained substantially from its incorporation into the theory, practice and policy announcements of international institutions such as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, UNESCO and the European Union (GILEAD, 2015).
On specific incursions by economics into other social sciences, Gilead, Ellison, and Allais are sound starting points when exploring economics imperialism in educational theory and research (GILEAD, 2015;ELLISON, 2014;AND ALLAIS, 2012). For sociology, Stephen Mennell provides interesting insights (MENNELL, 2014). He argues that when sociologists become enamoured of mainstream economic theory and modes of explanation then they can fall prey to some of its ideological aspects: the 'greed is good' syndrome, blindness to power relationships, the 'myth of virtue' (of economic rewards going to hard-working individuals), and 'deserved prosperity'. The hybrid discipline of economic sociology is no panacea either. Werner Bonefeld demonstrates how this academic field is founded upon the economy shaping social structures. Furthermore, the 'rationality of social actions' is defined by economic causes (BONEFELD, 2015, p. 150). On social anthropology, Chuah indicates how mainstream economists have colonised the concept of culture (CHUAH, 2006).
From another perspectivewith economics academically cleansing itselfa number of writers demonstrated how history in general (but especially economic history) and philosophy had been driven out of economics. 23 This academic cleansing has meant that mainstream economics was less able or inclined to include historical examples of crisis in its theories (e.g. the Great Depression of the 1930s). It was also less likely to be troubled by internal philosophical questioning and debate.
The position of psychology was slightly different to other social sciences. Some writers have argued that as economics colonised other social sciences it drew in impoverished psychological theories about maximising individuals and homo economicus in its wake. 24 Arjoon went the furthest on this line of thought to argue that it was psychology that was ultimately in command in this development (ARJOON, 2010). According to Arjoon, narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) was at the basis of the capitalist crisis of 2007-09. Greed and personal gains by investment bankers overrode any economic considerations.
Economics imperialism looked particularly out of place following the capitalist crisis of 2007-09. Questions were raised about the economics profession. First, many critics of mainstream economics (including Her Majesty the Queen, on a visit to the London School of Economics on 5 November 2008) asked why there was a failure to predict the 'credit crunch' and the capitalist crisis. 27 Some took this criticism further and sought to blame economists themselves, and not just their theories, for the crisis. 28 Widespread critiques of mainstream economics ensued during and following the crisis, and not just from Marxist economists. 29 Furthermore, the predicament of mainstream economics in the UK was compounded by erroneous claims that there would be a recession after the European Union Referendum in June 2016 (FEIERSTEIN, 2017). The chief economist of the Bank of England, Andy Haldane, recently claimed that the economics profession was in crisis after "failing to foresee the 2008 financial crash and misjudging the impact of the Brexit vote" (INMAN, 2017, p. 1). Larry Elliott, writing in The Guardian, argued that economic forecasts were "hardwired to get things wrong" as they were based on mainstream economic models where shocks and crises were excluded (ELLIOTT, 2017).
The capitalist crisis of 2007-08 had become a crisis of economics. Various solutions were offered as a way forward. Here are just a few of the leading ones. Some argued for greater pluralism in macroeconomic theory and more tolerance of alternatives such Keynesianism and Marxism. 30 Davis argued that, whilst the case for alternatives could be made, it was likely to be unsuccessful if mainstream economists felt these were being forced down their throats (DAVIS, 2014). Others came out more strongly in favour of heterodox economics, arguing that pluralistic neo-Keynesianism could provide a heterodox mainstream economics (BRESSER-PEREIRA, 2012, p. 3). The heterodox would become the orthodox! Another approach was to call for various 'alliances' between heterodox economics and other social sciences such as sociology and political economy (MARTIN, 2012;BROWN AND SPENCER, 2014;AND MENNELL, 2014), and other social sciences in general (AKAT, 2013). There were calls for a renewed political economy to supersede economics when analysing economic crises. 31 There were some Marxists who argued that Marxist theory should replace mainstream economics when understanding and explaining economic crises, 32 though how this would work out institutionally and without expelling vast numbers of mainstream economists would be a key issue. Desai and Freeman argued that the Great Recession exposed weaknesses in Marxist theory too; therefore the focus should be on those rather than any rescue of institutional academic "economics" (DESAI AND FREEMAN, 2011). On the same track, Kliman pointed to the "disintegration of the Marxian school", as exposed by the 2007-09 crisis, which was a more pressing concern (KLIMAN, 2010).
Once The Classical Theory of Education Crisis is embraced then the phenomena of economics imperialism and the crisis of economics come in train. But there are worse spectres. One of these is that the Classical Theory induces economic determinism: the idea that what goes on in the education system is determined and ultimately grounded in the economy. The spill-over effect of the theory implies that the really important action that makes for education crisis originates in the economy. Crude models of the base / superstructure in Marxist theory may spring to life. The irony is that Madan Sarup had warned against letting in economic determinism when theorising education via Marxism in his earlier Marxism and Education (SARUP, 1978).
The Classical Theory of Education Crisis also embraces what Sarup, writing with Ian Hextall at around the same time as he produced Marxism and Education, calls bourgeois social theory (HEXTALL AND SARUP, 1978). This involves fragmenting the social whole into partssystems and sub-systemsand then explaining how these are related. Social thought follows the same lines with its fragmented academic disciplines (sociology, politics etc.), which are in turn split up into sub-disciplines and a plethora of specialisms and microspecialisms. Conceptions of social totality and the social whole are lost in the process. In separating "economy"' and "education". The Classical Theory of Education follows this fragmentation. But this does not just have dire consequences for social theory in terms of creating fecund ground for determinism; it also has implications for class rule. As Holloway pointed out, in bourgeois social thought: "Division, divide and rule, fragmentation is the principle of theoretical abstraction in bourgeois theory, as it constitutes its distinct disciplines of political science, economics, sociology, law, computer science, etc. in order to understand society" (HOLLOWAY, 1992, p. 155).
The fragmentation inscribed within bourgeois social thought makes for difficulties in establishing the real connections between social phenomena in capitalist society as these are obscured by theoretical, academic and professional division. The Classical Theory of Education Crisis is an instance of this.
The fragmentation of bourgeois thought also travels smoothly with structuralism whereby functionalism can easily ride in the slipstream. Once the social totality is split into systems and subsystems the theorist has the problem of saying how these relate to each other. Functionalist theory is one solution to this problem, and Left functionalism has bedevilled Marxist thought on education for many years: an outlook that Liston problematized for Marxist educational theory and critiqued long ago (Liston, 1988). Again, Sarup criticized functionalism's entrance into Marxist work on education in his Marxism and Education book of 1978. Hextall and Sarup also noted that: "Functionalists analyse social life in terms of discrete, isolatable entities such as the cultural system, the social system and its various sub-systems" (HEXTALL AND SARUP, 1978, p. 153).
Yet Sarup seemed to be doing this in Education, State and Capital in 1982, and, note Hextall and Sarup: It is not surprising that this process of abstraction and reification leads to an emphasis on system stability rather than social change (HEXTALL AND SARUP, 1978, p. 153).
Thus, it might be concluded that such a theoretical perspective would be a liability when exploring crises, instability and fragility in capitalist society. But there is worse: reductionism.
The Classical Theory also involves a form of reductionism: all 'education' crises are at heart 'economic' crises. The former can be explained by the latter. Reductionism is a typical anti-Marxist jibe from those claiming to be asserting a more 'complex' view of society and social theory. Such reductionism undervalues (practically and theoretically) education, the work of teachers and the 'relative autonomy' of school life. 41 But reductionism is only possible when the type of structuralist theory operationalised by Sarup is the starting point. For Sarup, there are 'distinct' sub-systems within society: the 'economic' and 'education', and there are distinct 'economic' and 'education' phenomena. Finally, the 'economic' and 'education' react with each other through a philosophy of external relations: they are separate 'systems' within the social whole (which is comprised of various systems as structural partseducation, economy, polity, etc.). These systems are, in turn, composed of sub-systems and smaller 'parts' (e.g. institutions and roles). All this takes place in Education, State and Capital, despite Sarup's own warnings against 'Left functionalism' and reductionism in Marxist educational theory (SARUP, 1982, p. 28) and his earlier finger-wagging at such possibilities (in Sarup, 1978). 42 Backtracking to Roitman, The Classical Theory of Education Crisis forecloses on certain possibilities, one of these being that education crises might start off in what is considered to be "education" (Roitman, 2014). It rules out quintessentially education crises as crises of education itself, as opposed to crises in educationcrises that have their origins outside of educational institutions and processes. 41 After Althusser, 1971. 42 Contrarily, Sarup seems to be following a philosophy of external relations in his 1982 book. Paula Allman, 2007, pp. 7-8;and 2010, pp. 33-53, provides a concise and clear outline of the differences between a philosophy of external relations and, following Marx and the work of Bertell Ollman of 1976 and 1993, a philosophy of internal relations.

CONCLUSION
Notwithstanding the flaws and shortcomings in The Classical Theory of Education Crisis its Marxist pedigree is nevertheless to be fêted. This is because Marxism is a theory of crisis: it is a theory that seeks out the weak links, fragilities in the rule of capital. John Holloway has argued that: The concept of crisis is central to the Marxist analysis of capitalism. In crisis the impermanence of capitalism becomes clear, the inherent instability of capitalist domination: capital comes up against its limits. And it is on this inherent instability that the whole structure of Marxist thought is grounded: Marx's categories only make sense if capitalism is looked at from the point of view of its transcendence, as a historically specific form of social organisation (HOLLOWAY, 1987, p. 55).
Thus, Holloway establishes the significance of exploring the idea of crisis as it pertains to capitalist society: that is, the necessity to transcend capitalismwith its alienated labour, inequalities, constraints on what it is to be 'human', its crashing against the natural world with consequences for human survival, and so on. The idea of crisis generates hope of a better world, even as some outcomes of particular crises can cause human suffering (e.g. unemployment, poverty).
Without the idea of crisis, we have no foothold on the slippery terrain that is capitalism: either in terms of understanding it, or any likely progress in the project of moving beyond it. As Holloway notes: "If crisis is not at the core of capitalism, we would do better to all become well-integrated bourgeois and citizens and to cope with our frustrations in the privacy of our homes" (HOLLOWAY, 1987, p. 56).
Crisis, for Holloway, targets breakdown, deterioration, subversion, even rupture in social relations between labour and capitalto the detriment of capital, its health, accumulation, its expansion, or even existence. The capital relation is the relation between capital and labour, which is simultaneously the class relation. Human representatives of capital therefore, for the good of (or in extreme circumstances the survival of), the system, are faced with re-establishing capitalist domination: vanquishing labour insubordination to capital, typically leading to responses by the capitalist state as well as from other representatives of capital.
O Marxismo provê um caminho para sair do labirinto do capital, gerando esperança. Para Holloway: The point of Marxist theory is to understand that there can be a way forward, that the system of oppression is unstable, that it is full of contradictions … The instability of capitalism is nothing but the expression of our power, albeit an expression which we often do not recognise as such. Marxism, in other words, is the theory of working class power, a theory to help us recognise and increase our power (Holloway, 1990, p. 52).
Thus: capitalist crisis, instability and contradictions are pushed to the fore in Marxist theory. This is important as capitalism can appear to be hooked into eternity, very resilient and its weaknesses hard to expose. Its oppressiveness need not smother our hope, for: "So often Marxism is presented simply as a theory of capitalist oppression, when in fact it is a theory of the fragility of that oppression" (emphasis added) (HOLLOWAY, 1993, p. 19.) The fragility of capitalist oppression is central to Marxist theory, for, according to Holloway: …while the other theories [e.g. feminism and Green theory] are theories of social domination or oppression, Marxism takes that oppression as its starting point. The question of Marxism is not: 'how do we understand social oppression?', but: 'given that we live in an oppressive society, how can we understand the fragility of that oppression? (Holloway, 1994, p. 39).
Furthermore, argues Holloway, Marxism does not provide a theory of crisis, as: "…Marxism does not have a theory of crisis because it is a theory of crisis, a theory of the crisis, the rupture, the fragility of capitalism" (original emphases) (Holloway, 1994, pp. 39-40).
And therefore: "… Marxism retains its relevance as the most powerful theory-againstsociety that exists, the most powerful theory of the negation of capitalism that we have" (HOLLOWAY, 1995, p. 157).
Moving forward 20 years, and coming full circle, Holloway re-emphasises these points: What we are really looking for is hope, for cracks [in capitalism], and trying to think about the world from the standpoint of its fragility. This means trying to understand domination as a system of domination in crisis. That is the importance of Marxism. (emphases added) (Holloway, in Holloway and Jeffries, 2015, p. 102).
And this grounds a final criticism of The Classical Theory of Education Crisis: it never indicates how education crises constitute crises for capital. Indeed, through restructuring education, capital's problems are eased via a more capital-friendly education and training system.
The article by Simon Frith referred to earlier pointed towards how developments in education could create a crisis for capital, although he was not explicit on this score (FRITH, 1980). The social production of labour power in capitalism through education and training could exhibit signs of crisis for capital if young people were perceived to be insufficiently subordinated to its rule in terms of the labour-power attributes (including work and social attitudes) they were deemed to possess when entering capitalist work. In this way, what happens in education could constitute a crisis for capital: labour-power, as the unique, value-forming commodity in the capitalist social universe might be at risk through its owners' (labourers) reluctance to transform their labour-powers into labour in the labour process. This is one possible path of future research regarding education crisis, and seems to be the most powerful, hopeful and interesting alternative to the Classical Theory. …enquanto outras teorias [ex; feminismo e teoria Verde] são teorias da dominação social ou opressão, o Marxismo toma a opressão como ponto de partida. A questão do Marxismo não é: 'como nós entendemos a opressão social?', mas 'dado que nós vivemos em uma sociedade opressora, como podemos entender a fragilidade desta opressão?' (Holloway, 1994, p. 39).
There are also possibilities regarding the critique of developments that appear to threaten the integrity of education itself. For example, Joel Spring pointed towards the commodification, capitalisation and marketisation of education (Spring, 2015). These processes, together with human capital theory as the basis for education and training policy, constitute the economisation of education for Spring: the subordination of education and training systems, educational theory and philosophy, and education policy and practice to the requirements of capital accumulation. In the UK context, the notion of 'employability', so central to higher education policy making, could also be thrown into the mix. Spring also indicates the various measures (e.g. comparative international test scores) underpinning the relative quality of education commodities and the ideological and strategic roles they play in enforcing and consolidating educational economisation and the crass vocationalisation of education that flow in its wake. Of course, Marxist analysis could be applied to these developments, though Spring does not take that route for critique. But it could be argued that this project would provide only a critical analysis of surface phenomena, and fail to get to the root, to be radical, regarding the critique of these aspects.
Another possibility for further research would be to explore autogenous theories of education crisis. Such theories start out from notions of education itself (as opposed to any economic crisis), and then show how these conceptions of education are threatened by real education policies and economic and social developments. Thus: autogenous, self-generated theories of education crisis are theories of education crisis, rather than denoting crises in education that have their origins within the economy (as with the Classical Theory). This possibility was pursued in "deleted for anonymity". 45 Finally, this paper contains a significant lacuna that requires attention in future work. There is a need to bring forward the analysis of the Classical Theory from the Neoliberal Recession of the early 1980s to the present day, and, in particular, to show how, in the Great Recession of recent times and thereafter, the Classical Theory was the default and largely unrecognised theory of education crisis.