If social justice in the classroom is to be achieved, and if it currently is not due to the notion of the curriculum being inaccessible because of the discourse used, should the idea of change of linguistic code in the classroom be entertained? Keeping in mind that language is an intrinsic part of identity, the effects of imposing a change to something as personal as an identity should be carefully examined before being implemented. Bernstein (1958) intimates that the lower somebody's social strata, the greater resistance they will show to formal education and learning, including that this is actually a function of the group. His literature also explains the method of resistance that is likely to be displayed, including, critical problems of discipline, non-acceptance of the values of the teacher, the failure to develop and feel the need for an extensive vocabulary and a preference for a descriptive rather than an analytical cognitive process (p. 160). As previously evidenced the particular demographic of pupil are united due to the discourse they use, combine with this a united negative disposition towards schooling and it can be understood that willingness to discourse shift from this demographic may be very low.If this strategy has flaws, should the question of linguistic change to the curriculum be raised? It seems pertinent that if as mentioned all have access to a restricted linguistic code, and not all have access to an elaborated code, that a restricted code is the ideal tongue for teaching. Complications with this postulate are however immediately obvious, notably the impact on the quality of the subject knowledge being transferred to the pupil, and the power struggle that may result in using an inferior strand of language. Regarding the quality of the pedagogy, is it correct to propose for example, that in mathematics the word integer which is rich and very specific in meaning, elaborate in code, be sacrificed for the perhaps more accessible number, from a restricted code? One could foresee benefits in pupil attention, and it could be argued that a poor understanding is better than no understanding at all.