Para2: The class difference in education is evident in a study by Bernstein showing that the working classes are disadvantaged in education because of speech codes. Bernstein suggested that working class students suffer from a language deficit and results in their failure in education system. Bernstein stated that middle class children had elaborated speech codes in which they have the ability to switch to from the restricted code where they would speak in more detail and use complex sentence structures whereas working class children have only restricted speech codes and their speech is disjointed and unpunctuated and not elaborated. Since most text books and exam papers use elaborated codes the working class would have difficulty understanding them thus resulting in failure and the middle class having an advantage in education. Due to the disadvantage the working classes have this explains the reproduction of the class system, supporting the Marxist view.
Para3: Although Bernstein’s theory gives support to the Marxist view it can be criticized since it is stereotypical of the working class children. Not all working class children may have restricted code, they may have elaborated speech codes and not all middle class children may have the ability to switch to elaborated code, thus contradicting the support.
Para4: A criticism of the Marxist view is that of Paul Willis who was a neo-Marxist who took an interpretist approach to Marxist theory. He studied a small group of working class boys- ‘the lads’ during their last year and a half at school. Willis found that the boys rejected school and had an anti-school subculture. Some observations demonstrating this were that the ‘lads’ felt superior to teachers, they attached little value to school work, they had no desire for qualification and they were amused by having a laugh and giving the ‘ear holes’ (clever kids) and hard time. This showed that education doesn’t prepare ideal workers or legitimize inequality since, there was no conformity or obedience shown by the ‘lads’ proving that that hidden curriculum can be rejected and people don’t always accept their class position.
Para5: Functionalists disagree with the Marxist view and believe that education plays a positive role in society and has three main functions. These are skills provision: teaching the skills required by a modern industrial society, either general or specific, socialization: transmitting key beliefs, norms and values and role allocation: where education sifts and sort people into the appropriate jobs for their talents through exams and qualifications. Functionalists believe that there’s an equality of opportunity where education is meritocratic, so that every one of any class has the chance to achieve success in society based on their ability. Therefore showing that children don’t have to accept inequality and education allows social mobility so it doesn’t reproduce class structure.
Concl: In conclusion both functionalism and Marxism both look at the big picture, tending to ignore social interaction- with the exception of Willis. Both say that education has a huge impact on the individual and that there’s a close link with the economy and work. The biggest difference is how they see inequality. Marxists say that education helps to maintain inequality and make people accept inequality. Functionalists, however, say education passes on the value of meritocracy and lets people better themselves.