Hidden Curriculum

Although public schools have established curricula that must be followed according to local, state, and federal mandates, schools also enlighten students through instruction on subjects that are not defined through the curriculum. This hidden curriculum, as defined by Tozer (2009), is the type of schooling which involves “teaching and learning not included in either curricular or extracurricular activities” (p. 7). This type of learning “is generally not spoken of as curriculum by school authorities. . .students learn powerful ‘lessons’. . .about punctuality, respect for and even fear of authority, time organization, and competition for limited rewards” (Tozer, 2009, pp. 7-8). How many times does a teacher instruct a student about the importance of being on time, not only to class, but in the future when they are in college and have a job? The importance of respecting one’s teachers, administrators, supervisors, and elders is widely preached in public schools. This hidden curriculum is not outlined through any mandated instruction but is almost certainly a guarantee for students at some part of their educational experience.

Who decides what the “social norm” or expected behavior will be for the students and how to deliver the instruction? Are teachers and their personal and spiritual believes the basis of the hidden curriculum provided to students? The Italian Marxist Gramsci produced the theory of cultural hegemony, which is defined as “the success of the dominant classes in presenting their definition of reality, their view of the world, in such a way that it is accepted by other classes as ‘common sense’” (retrieved from faculty.washington.edu, 2012). The hidden curriculum in public schools aligns with Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony.

Karp (as cited by Tozer, 2009) paints a bleak outlook on the course of public schools and the cultural hegemony prevalent in our society: “Public schools stamp out republican sentiment by habituating their students to unfairness, inequality, and special privilege. . .these arise inevitably from the educational establishment’s longstanding policy of maintaining the correlation between social class and educational achievement” (p. 294). Students are separated into tracking systems (Karp, 1985), which makes privilege and inequality blatantly visible to everyone. This “wretched arrangement expresses the true spirit of public education in America and discloses the real aim of its hidden curriculum” (Karp, 1985).

Patricians and Plebeians

            After reading Karp’s article, I now have a different perspective of cultural hegemony’s affect in the public school classroom. Originally, I assumed that it meant that we made students salute to the flag and say the pledge of allegiance to the Texas flag because we are Texans, and we perceive ourselves as the dominant cultural, spiritual, and political group in Texas. After all, we want and expect all people to recognize and embrace the Texan culture, right?

            Now I realize that cultural hegemony is way beyond making a student say a pledge to a flag of a state that they may have no prior affiliation with. We separate students into groups. The “dominant” group can be identified as your gifted students, who “serve the wealthier youngsters, and the general tracks serve the working class. . .vocational programs are the cruel social dumping ground” (Sizer, as cited by Karp, 1985). Although harsh, there is merit to this statement. Public schools can be viewed in a similar light to the Roman Empire: students who are in advanced classes, members of the football team or cheerleaders can be viewed as the school’s patricians, who are bestowed a special status at the school and expected to move on to bigger and grander things after school. Everyone else are your plebeians. They fall between the cracks, are often overlooked, and are not held to the same expectations. This is a systematic failure of our public education system and does a grave disservice to the students we serve.

Assimilation or Cultural Pluralism?

             Students may attempt to assimilate with the dominant group in an effort to become “one of the cool kids.” A boy might try out for football, not because he likes football or is knowledgeable of the game, but simply because he wants to be part of the accepted crowd, the dominant culture of the school. Mind you, the football players in a high school are severely outnumbered by the remaining students, but are still viewed as the dominant student class. Schools are quickly becoming highly diversified with an increasing minority population. Assimilation is not realistic nor the desired expectation for the school culture. A pluralistic society must be in place at the school to recognize all student groups as equal and afforded the same educational and extracurricular opportunity. Lower socio-economic students and minority students must not be pushed aside for the “elite” class in an honors program or on the football team. Increasing cultural pluralism must coincide with increasing diversity to afford our students the opportunity to study and respect different ideas, beliefs, and cultures.  

The Future of Educational Pluralism

            Education must play a role in society. Parents want what is best for their children. Teachers should strive for success and grand expectations for all students, regardless of their socioeconomic status, race, gender, disability, or any other distinguishing characteristic. Schools must be culturally pluralistic. Curriculum must be uniform and provide an opportunity for all students to achieve their utmost goals and expectations. Remember, schools are creating and casting the environment in which children will live and learn in throughout their lives. As a child, I remember what my parents told me and what my teachers taught me. My beliefs are shaped in some form by both. Education must not and cannot continue to separate students into classes or tracking systems, as this will continue to follow the child throughout adulthood and will be bestowed to their children as well.

References

Goldberg, M. Hegemony. Retrieved from faculty.washington.edu

Karp, W. (1985). Why Johnny can’t think. Harper’s Magazine.

Tozer, S., Senese, G., & Violas, P. (2009). School and Society – Historical and Contemporary

Perspectives (6 ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.

School Reform

Voices of School Reform

What exactly is school reform? According to Tozer (2009), four themes characterize the current reform movement: standardized assessment as indicative of educational excellence; tension between concern for excellence and concern for diversity and equity; student and parent choice in schooling; and restructuring in school governance (p. 352). Too often, state and federal level politicians are the only voices heard in the process of school reform. Many of our politicians are not educators; they are lawyers and political scientists, with no operational or instructional knowledge of the needs of our schools and students.

Through the No Child Left Behind act and Race to the Top policy, federal politicians are now the controlling voice in public education. How does a federal bureaucrat in Washington comprehend the needs of a child in Wyoming? What voices were heard when passing these legislative acts, placing further instructional and financial restraints on the states and local education agencies? Was it their electorate? One fact holds true: the voices of the teachers, administrators, parents, and students went unheard.   

It is imperative that all stakeholders have a voice in school reform. This includes parents, teachers, administrators, community members, and most importantly, the students. A politician in Washington is directly impacting the educational needs of the students by pushing through legislation that inevitably hurts the educational environment. Call me a classical liberal, anarchist, or libertarian, but an unelected federal bureaucrat should not have the ability to enact laws and legislation that directly impacts the youth of this country without hearing the needs of the stakeholders. 

By passing legislation without appropriating funding, schools are doomed for immediate failure. President Obama, in his Race to the Top program, for instance “leverages the incentive of grant money to compel states to make policy changes . . . one example: States stand a better chance of receiving grants if they remove barriers to the creation of public charter schools” (Strauss, 2012). Whether I agree or disagree with this policy is a moot point in this post; the methodology of enacting legislation is the key. The Race to the Top policy gives the wrong message.  It says:  we (i.e., the federal government) will provide more funding, only if you do what we tell you. 

Would the David School be successful as a school of choice if federal legislation required the school to teach a similar curriculum as that of a public school? The reason students such as Chris and Cody attended the David School is that it provided a differentiated curriculum; it gave students the opportunity to be successful. By complying with the No Child Left Behind act or the Race to the Top program, the David School would lose its distinctive appeal.   

My fear is, before long, federal bureaucrats and lobbyist will be telling educators what to teach and how to teach it. I understand the importance of a national set of standards for all students to make certain that a tenth grade student in Texas is being taught similar curriculum to a tenth grade student in Utah. However, it is imperative for the success of all students of the United States that a unilateral, bipartisan decision is made. This decision should occur only after hearing input from the key stakeholders of school reform:  teachers, students, parents, and the community. Sorry educational lobbyist—you are not invited. 

Gender Equity

            Never did I realize throughout school any form of gender bias between boys and girls.  I went to a high school where it seemed to me that girls and boys were treated equally, were given similar opportunities, and were held to the same standards.  However, looking back, the top 2% of my graduating class were comprised mostly of girls, and as a boy, I was severely outnumbered in the advanced placement classes.  Teachers also did not treat me with the same level of seriousness.  I was a typical guy, and as a result, I was in the principal’s office much more often than my female colleagues.   

            The question is why?  According to Kleinfeld (1998), “teachers think girls are smarter, like being around them more, and hold higher expectations for them.”  As a result, girls get higher grades in school, do better than boys in standardized tests of reading and writing, and get higher class rank and more school honors. (Kleinfeld, 1998).  This has led many to believe that there is a gender bias in schools. As a teacher, I disagree with Kleinfeld.  I never made a generalized assumption that any gender or race was more capable than another.  Expectations and accountablity were universal concepts for my students.  Thus, in my case, I believe my frequent journey to the principal office was not a result of gender bias, but because boys simply enjoy starting food fights and orchestrating pranks more than girls. 

My opinion seems to be confirmed by what occurred at the David School.  Through the individualized attention provided by the David School, the boys featured in the movie were emboldened by their successes in choir and the school newspaper.  These successes are not unique to boys; both boys and girls are energized when they feel like they are doing something important, fun and rewarding.  Similarly for me, teaching government allowed each student the opportunity to explore and develop their individual political beliefs.  Both boys and girls were excited to talk about and explore their viewpoints. 

            The bigger isssue that I see in my district and others is continued disenfranchisement of minorities.  According to Kleinfeld, “The myth that schools shortchange girls is dangerously wrong because it has diverted policy attention from the group at genuine risk—African American boys . . . .This is the group that scores lowest on virtually every educational measure.”  The data presented by Kleinfeld (1998) and Mead support the conclusion that girls do better than boys, but that those differences are minute compared to those between White and African-American students’ performance. 

Regardless of gender or race, equal educational opportunities need to be presented to all students.  As educators, it is our responsibility to provide additional support to those who are in need or at risk.  As an eduacator, I attempted to reach both males and females by providing visual, tactical and auditory learning techniques throughout my lectures.  While some data deomstrates that girls and boys learn differently, all students benefit from different teaching styles.  Therefore, I believe teachers do not need to teach males and females differently.  

Rita

The David School, located in David, Kentucky, is a non-denominational private high school with a mission to serve struggling and underprivileged students. According to the David School website, the mission is to “provide a comprehensive educational program for Appalachian youth and adults who have limited financial resources and the potential to succeed in a non-traditional setting.” The David School serves high school students who are deficient in basic academic skills, and who are at-risk of dropping out of school and referred to them by public school personnel, social service agencies or parents. Furthermore, more than 75 percent of the students at the David School live at or below the poverty levels.

Administrators at the David School strive to create a positive environment for their students. The struggles students face, including Cody Perkins and Chris Johnson, include hostile and unsupportive family environments and a culture which includes gun violence. Administrators and teachers at the David School attempt to reach out to these students and provide them the resources and ability to be successful both academically and in their personal lives.

Rita Martinelli would continue this mission at the David School. As an administrator at Wilson Middle School, she served students who faced similar challenges as those at the David School. The student body was primarily lower-socioeconomic and racially diverse. Additionally, there was limited student management at Wilson due to the challenges and the lack of oversight by previous administrators. Immediately upon Rita’s arrival at Wilson, she wanted to ascertain the areas where inequities existed among her school and observe classroom instruction and student management techniques. Rita quickly realized the inequities and stratification that was occurring at Wilson and developed plans to bring the stakeholders together to determine what course of action should be taken to resolve the concerns of her students, staff, and community.

            Rita’s ability to identify problems and work collaboratively with students and staff towards solutions identifies her as a great leader. If Rita was the principal at the David School, her mission would be the same. Her desire to involve students in fine arts programs would result in the implementation of similar programs at the David School as a method of motivation and partnership among her students. Rita also has an ability to build relationships with her students and provide her students a valuable voice in determining the proper course of action at her school. Essentially, Rita realizes that her decisions effects the students at her school, and their voice should be heard. This is important at the David School, where students from multiple backgrounds and faced with different challenges all need individualistic attention in order to be successful at school.

            Rita would be a successful principal regardless of her location or assignment. Her techniques provide a unique opportunity for the students’ voices to be heard. She orchestrates an environment in which collaborative learning is fundamental. Students are motivated to perform well both academically and in the school environment through fine arts programs and other extracurricular activities. As principal of the David School, Rita would expand on her abilities to effectively lead the school by providing additional programs for students and reaffirming the sense of community among the students.