Amy raises a great question: do the similarities of work and school originate in the schools, as she argues, or in work, as Bowles and Gintis argue? B&G's work is rooted in the neo-Marxist perspective (or so-called "conflict theory"), which, as you've seen stresses the role of the economy, class, production, work, etc. This see's schools functioning to meet the needs of business, by preparing some people for working class jobs, and other people for "middle class jobs", largely by socializing in preparation for how these jobs are organized.

One could argue instead, as Amy does, that this treatment originated in schools, and workplaces merely borrow the technique their workers are already used to.

I don't think there's an easy way to "test" this debate. One could look historically to see if workplaces or schools developed these practices first, or look to see where workplaces get their ideas for controlling workers. Personally, I'm with B&G on this, though it certainly could be some of both: while work places may "borrow" some of these practices from school, many businesses get their practices from "labor psychologists", economists, etc, who develop these ideas promising greater productivity and control to owners and managers. Many of them are responses to the workers who are alienated by work conditions that give them little or no control over their work (the assembly line is an obvious example, but its common in working class jobs).

Finally, I would cite the example of my brother who first started teaching in a working class mill town in northern Maine. He was very enthusiastic and wanted to turn his students onto the material, in part by giving them significant control over their own learning. Unused to this, they initially responded much like students on days the substitute comes in: they were loud and boisterous and my brother didn't respond by demanding they "behave." The principal several times criticized my brother, ultimately driving him to leave at the end of the year, despite the success he had with his students. The principal's argument was that these kids were going to become mill workers, that they didn't need to be turned onto learning, but instead needed to learn to show up to work on time, and do what they were told, and that he (my brother) was doing them a disservice. This principal, in his own mind, was trying to "help" the students. B&G and I would argue that he was actually just ensuring that the educational experience of the students "corresponded" with the labor conditions they would face in their lives. As such, they were "prepared" for life in the working class by schools, a preparation that would leave them ill prepared for jobs requiring more autonomous work. Middle class kids, of course, tend to be prepared for such autonomous work by their schools, which together helps reproduce the class structure.