Highfill 1

W. Justin Highfill

Professor Rieman

English 1101X

2 February 2010

Unmasking the Hidden Curriculum

The "hidden curriculum" is the supposed process by which schools "prepare" their

students to enter certain class-specific jobs and lifestyles. The hypothesis, laid down in Jean

Anyon's essay "Social Class and the Hidden Curriculum of Work," is that the class of the

school, determined by the social class of the students and their parents, decides the social class

the students are prepared for. That is, a lower or working-class school gears its students to enter

into the working class, while an upper class school sets its students on the path to an upper-class

lifestyle. In theory, this is accomplished through psychological and behavioral conditioning.

The differences are not so much in the material as they are in their methods of presentation, with

the overall goal not to develop class-specific skills, but to inflict a class-specific mind set. This

is done primarily through the attitudes and observed outlooks of the teachers. Whereas a lower

class teacher might demand a strict and mundane regimen, using menial tasks and base repetition

as a form of teaching, a higher-class teacher might place emphasis on understanding the concept,

which is arguably "teaching" vs. "learning." The focus change is based on the student, with the

"teaching" method requiring little actual thought on the part of the student, while the "learning"

approach hinges on and develops the student’s ability and willingness to grasp a concept.
 Highfill 2

The projected result of these different teaching styles is a mindset custom tailored to the

job line one is supposed to enter. The lower-class education accustoms the student to menial

labor, strict organizational hierarchy, and an unquestioning acceptance for rules, a mindset fitting

with working-class jobs. The higher-class education, on the other hand, having expanded the

students' problem solving, critical, and analytical thinking skills, is a well-suited preparation for

upper class jobs involving decision making and management.

It is here that the question arises. Should the schools decide what social class a child

should ultimately enter? But before we can address that, we need to look at the extent and

deliberateness of this "hidden curriculum" theory. Anyon's essay portrays the hidden curriculum

as a product of teaching styles, and thus, primarily dependant on the teacher. Are all teachers

calculatingly guiding their students through subtle manipulation? Or are the varying teaching

styles an indiscriminate product of environment?

Anyon's focus stems toward the end result of this schooling. In her quest to expose what

she believes to be a grievous wrong, she fails to thoroughly examine the different possible causes

of the varying classroom activity. This is evidenced by Anyon's statement, "What is of primary

concern is not the immediate cause of classroom activity." (Anyon 246) While this outlook

spotlights the result over the origin, focusing on the final outcome of the students as opposed to

why that outcome exists, it does not fail to exhibit Anyon's personal opinion, and the reader ends

up with a slanted view, angled toward the beliefs of the author. The causes for her observations,

the reason behind the "hidden curriculum" cannot be ignored. Making the determinations of

whether a result is insidious in nature or is the natural product of a set situation, of who is to

blame, and of whether it can or even should be changed, are all dependent upon the why. By
 Highfill 3

overlooking the origins of this situation, Anyon's reader is forced to act upon her assumptions,

her belief that the hidden curriculum is both manufactured and wrong.

Many would argue that the hidden curriculum, (at least in the sense that Anyon portrays

it) does not exist, and that differing methods in teaching are in direct response to the behavior of

the children. A misbehaved, unmotivated, or uncaring group of students would not respond to

the teaching attempts of the upper class teachers. They would abuse their freedom, and

ultimately, the teacher would be forced to amend her teaching habits, accepting that only strict

regimens could coerce orderly conduct from her students. After a time teaching in such an

environment, the teacher would abandon her former style completely, relying on regimen for all

of her new classes. Consequently, in a classroom of well-behaved, self-motivated, eager

students, the same teacher would be freer to allow the children to explore on their own, knowing

that they have the willingness and capability to both learn and thrive, and thus she would be able

to abstain from trite, regimental methods. This argument asserts that schools do not teach social

class, so as to instill it, but teach to the class of their students, tailoring their lessons and teaching

methods to best suit the learning capabilities of their students.

John Taylor Gatto, an ex-teacher turned activist for school reform, and author of books

such as Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling (1992), carries

the opposite opinion. He writes: "The current system of government factory schooling is based

on belief that ordinary children cannot accomplish much, will not work hard unless coerced,

tricked, or bribed, and will inevitably work, for the balance of their post school lives, - if they

work at all - in large government, corporate, or institutional employment pyramids managed by a

professional elite. (Gatto 1997)" These circumstances would perfectly explain the current

system. According to this view, the lower class, or by this definition, ordinary students, would
 Highfill 4

not be viewed as capable. They would not be expected to "accomplish much" or even to be able

to work diligently without manipulation. In this case, they would be taught down to, set strict,

infantile rules to keep them in place, and even treated with an obscene lack of respect, all aspects

portrayed in Anyon's essay. At the same time, this view looks upon the upper-class children as

"above ordinary." Those children would be held to a different standard of schooling, one tailored

toward their growth and advancement, allowing them to thrive. Under this argument, in direct

opposition to the previous assertion, the personality or quality of the students has no affect on

their schooling. They are gauged solely on the social standing of their parents, and are treated

accordingly.

Both of these arguments serve to qualify the current system of schooling. Both achieve

the same results, but under completely different methods. With one, the reasons are arguably

good, even beneficial, and the outcome is natural. With the other, the reasons would most likely

be considered wrong, and the outcome an unjust product.

But in the end, while the reasons for the current system of schooling are inconclusive,

and it is even unclear if the outcome is just or unjust, both types of students end up able to

perform in school. They both are afforded the academic resources to further their education

through college, and with a college education, to change their place in society, be it established

by school or not.

Work Cited
 Highfill 5

Anyon, Jean. "Social Class and the Hidden Curriculum of Work." Writing Conventions. Eds.

Lu and Horner. New York: Pearson 2008. 246. Print

Gatto, John Taylor. "Mudsill Theory, the Lancaster Amish and Jamie Escalante."

www.spinninglobe.net/amishmudsill.html. 1997. Web.