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.