Examine the Marxist view that the role of the education system is to reproduce and justify the existing class structure.

education is not the pivotal point to determine who obtains what type of job through merit, but concludes that it is indeed their class that determines their job.         The Marxist idea is that schools depress the talents of some students, using their social background to determine their occupational position. Opposing their views are the functionalists. They on the other hand believe in the concept of meritocracy. This is based on the idea that you get your desired occupation through your own merit and hard work instead of your class status which is according to Marxism.         Marxist views are also based around the idea that the higher class you are, the more options there are available and maybe offered to you. Thus meaning, for example, if you attend a comprehensive school over a public or private school, you are less likely to achieve good results. This supposedly being through the lack of options available to you opposed to that of public or private schools. The functionalist view on this social class structure however, gives a ‘truer picture’. As children from ‘working class’ families who attend comprehensive schools, can achieve middle/upper class jobs, through staying on at school or going to university or specialised colleges, just like middle class children can do who have attended public or private schools.         Marxists could argue however, that some working class children only get to university or specialised colleges via scholarships or special programmes so therefore without them there theories would be valid and consistent but I believe it just shows that the government and education system are recognising that if other working class children can go on to get higher paid and higher status jobs, then a lot more can with there help. Hence meaning that class doesn't necessarily have to determine your lifestyle or job. 421         The functionalist view on a child’s social class affecting there aspirations and opportunities contradict that of the Marxist yet again. They argue that there is no real proof to support the contention that systems of education have any central role in determining life/career paths for individuals. Marxists believe the proof is seen through the government and the teachers approach to pupils; holding low expectations for the working class and therefore damaging any self fulfilling prophecy that the child may once have had. They also suggest that private schools debar the majority of the working class students from attending due to this low expectation, subsequently lowering the options they are offered in later life to contribute to a better career. This argument is advanced because of the belief that equality of educational opportunity is not offered in schools and are not meritocratic as thought by the functionalists.         In conclusion, from a Marxist point of view, schools merely serve to allocate which status job a pupil has from the certain class they are from already. However they believe that the career options a specific pupil can receive is affected by equality of educational opportunity. If you belong in a working class environment you are indeed less likely to be offered or in fact come across as many opportunities as a pupil from an upper class society which inevitably narrows your choices for your field of work. Schooling therefore appears to demoralize the talents of any working class student according to Marxism. If a pupil comes from a working class background teachers and the government will automatically label this student as an automatic failure. In this way the working classes are sifted out of the educational system in the same way as which they go in. The overall result of the role allocation function of schools means that the social class structure is enforced and reproduced repeatedly.