Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 18: 593–614 (2008)

Published online 10 July 2008 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/casp.974

Engaging Contexts: Drawing the Link between

Student and Teacher Experiences of the
Hidden Curriculumy

REGINA D. LANGHOUT1* and CECILY A. MITCHELL2

1
University of California at Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA
2
Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT, USA

ABSTRACT

This article examines how academic disengagement (being off task, unenthusiastic and uncurious
about learning) is facilitated by the hidden curriculum (the values, norms and beliefs transmitted via
the structure of schooling), and mediated by race, ethnicity and gender for students in a working class
elementary school. Additionally, we contextualize how a teacher was challenged by the hidden
curriculum in her attempt to make her classroom environment engaging for all students. Participants
included a young white female teacher and 21 second grade, low-income students, of whom
approximately 50% were white and 50% were Black or Latino/a. A teacher interview and fieldnotes
covering 8 hours a week over 3 months comprised the data. Results indicated that students were
required to show their engagement in particular ways that related to control and conformity. When
they did not, they were reprimanded, which led to academic disengagement and the transmission of
the hidden curriculum’s message that school was not a place for them. This process was especially
salient for Black and Latino boys, which indicated that the hidden curriculum was institutionalized.
Results also showed that the hidden curriculum was a structural limitation for the teacher, as she was
often thwarted in her attempts to create an academically engaging learning environment. Implications
include strategies for school change and reform, including making the hidden curriculum more
visible. Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Key words: elementary schools; student engagement; classroom discipline; elementary school
teachers; multiculturalism

INTRODUCTION

A positive school experience is central to promoting psychological health and well-being

in children (Cowen, 1996), yet the school experience is not positive for a majority of

* Correspondence to: Regina D. Langhout, Psychology Department, University of California, 1156 High Street,
Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA. E-mail: langhout@ucsc.edu
y
This article is based on the senior thesis of Cecily A. Mitchell. Parts of this paper were presented at the 9th
Biennial Conference of the Society for Community Research and Action (2003, June) Las Vegas, NM.

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 5 September 2007
594 R. D. Langhout and C. A. Mitchell

students (Sarason, 1997, 2004). School has become a boring, stultifying place where
students have to be, but do not want to be (Goodlad, 1984; Sarason, 1995). Although this
situation affects all students, it has a disparate impact on lower income, and racial and
ethnic minority students,1 who tend to lag behind wealthier white students in measures of
academic achievement, are over-represented in special education classes and have higher
dropout rates (Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Delpit, 1995; Fine, Burns, Payne, & Torre, 2002;
Hochschild, 2003; Ladson-Billings, 1994; Persell, 1977).
Community psychologists have been involved in school reform to facilitate more
academically engaging experiences, especially for historically excluded students. As a
discipline, we have not had much success in these endeavours. In fact, community
psychologists tend to be frustrated by their own efforts to facilitate change. Indeed, the
school reform literature indicates that attempts at change are fraught with challenge
(Kozol, 1991; McMillan, 1975; Ouellett, 1996; Rappaport, Moore, & Hunt, 2003; Sarason,
1971, 1995, 1997). Though difficult, school reform is crucial because most schools are
failing most children (Wilson & Davis, 1994).
This already complicated school reform endeavour is made nearly impossible when we
do not examine the underlying assumptions of the system (Sarason, 1995). One way to
study underlying assumptions is to interrogate the hidden curriculum. Briefly, the hidden
curriculum consists of the values, norms and beliefs that are transmitted to students and
teachers via the structure of schooling (Giroux & Penna, 1979). Essentially, examining the
hidden curriculum allows community psychologists to investigate the implicit messages
conveyed in schools and these messages are directly tied to underlying assumptions.
This article takes a step back and examines in-depth how the hidden curriculum
manifested itself in one second grade classroom, with an emphasis on the effects on
students and the teacher. This kind of inquiry can provide a foundation that will make next
steps in school reform more apparent. Specifically, we focus on how lower income students
disengage from school, which has implications for interventions that can disrupt the
process of disidentification with the academic domain. A higher level of analysis is
implicated, as we show similarities in experiences for students and their teacher. The first
research question assesses how academic disengagement is facilitated by the hidden
curriculum, and mediated by race, ethnicity and gender. What does the process of academic
disengagement look like? Research question two asks: how does the hidden curriculum
challenge the teacher’s vision of creating an academically engaging learning environment
for all students?

Toward a structural analysis

One problem with the literature on student academic disengagement, especially in regard
to historically excluded students, is that it tends to focus on the individual only. Thinking
about the process of student disengagement and ways to disrupt this process, however,
requires a structural analysis; this can be done by interrogating power and control
(Prilleltensky, Nelson, & Peirson, 2001), or access to resources, self-determination and
1
We have elected to use the term ‘racial and ethnic minority student’ when speaking of the experiences of Black,
Latino/a and Asian/Asian American students that are represented in the literature, and ‘Black and Latino/a’ when
speaking of the experiences of our study participants. Although the term ‘racial/ethnic minority student’
automatically makes white the majority (normative), we find the term less problematic that ‘student of colour’,
which tends to set up white as majority (normative), but also marks white as ‘colourless’, thus ignoring white
privilege. With respect to our study participants, the labels Black and Latino/a are descriptive of the population.

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 18: 593–614 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
 Engaging contexts 595

self-efficacy. With respect to school children, this perspective helps to avoid the focus
being placed solely on the individual/internal experiences of disengagement, and draws
attention to structures through which power is sustained, providing a more critical analysis
(Howarth, 2004; Prilleltensky et al., 2001).
Research done with a commitment to examining social categories critically highlights
structures of power and inequality and reveals how these structures are built and
maintained (Howarth, 2004). This analysis helps to avoid a ‘culture of blame’ that is
pervasive in some research (e.g. ‘disruptive children’ or ‘racist teachers’ are responsible for
the achievement gap), and allows interrogation of exclusionary institutional social
practices that are sustained and ‘embodied in the micro-politics of everyday encounters’
(Howarth, 2004, p 366). Analysing schools via the hidden curriculum and how this relates
to student engagement integrates a structural analysis and makes it possible to explore
power and control.

Academic engagement and the hidden curriculum

Students who identify with school are more likely to be academically engaged and have
positive school feelings (Skinner & Belmont, 1993). Academic engagement is present
when students are behaviourally and positively emotionally involved in the learning
activity at hand. In other words, students are on task and enthusiastic, optimistic and
curious about learning (Skinner & Belmont, 1993). Academic engagement, in turn,
predicts children’s long-term academic achievement (Furrer & Skinner, 2003). It is
therefore important to understand the ways in which schools contribute to academic
engagement and conversely, academic disengagement.
Schools have become, for lower income students, ‘outposts of domination’ (Levine,
Lowe, Peterson, & Tenorio, 1995). Lower income students come to school with enthusiasm
and excitement for learning. Yet, after a few years, the seeds are sown for mistrust, anger
and eventually disassociation from schooling (Fine et al., 2002; Ladson-Billings, 1994).
Berstein (1971) argues that for low-income students, teachers dictate how to behave and
learn without consideration of the students’ experiences. A structural understanding of why
schools are ‘outposts of domination’ for lower income students is made possible by
interrogating the hidden curriculum.
Giroux and Penna (1979) define the hidden curriculum as the ‘unstated norms, values and
beliefs that are transmitted to students through the underlying structure and meaning. . .in the
social relations of the school and classroom life’ (p 22). In schools that serve lower income,
and racial and ethnic minority students, the hidden curriculum is transmitted largely through
the rule-oriented disciplinary code. The emphasis placed on the rules tends to work to the
detriment of students’ personal and intellectual development in that a high rules emphasis
tends to thwart excitement for learning (Hale, 1994; Persell, 1977; Rios, 1996).
The disciplinary code is reflected in behaviour modification systems. Although some
behaviour modification techniques are helpful for teaching self-discipline, many schools
that serve lower income students use these techniques frequently and with great intensity
(Edwards, 1994; Kaywell, 1987). This further facilitates disengagement from school, as
the constant usage of these strategies serves to control students and ‘make them fit’ into
a standard mode of behaviour (Bear, 1998). Furthermore, when students are denied
opportunities for self-direction in the classroom, they are more likely to academically
disengage (Ames, 1992; Langhout, 2005), thus reinforcing the hidden curriculum.
Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 18: 593–614 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
596 R. D. Langhout and C. A. Mitchell

The emphasis on following the rules and behaving in specific ways is usually reflected in
the learning environment, in that particular forms of behaviour signal student academic
engagement to the teacher. This explicit prescription of what academic engagement looks
like assumes that different behaviour is misbehaviour and therefore not academic
engagement. Students who are likely to engage in behaviour that is read as disrespectful are
boys, low income and racial and ethnic minority students (Bear, 1998; Cornbleth & Korth,
1980; Hale, 2001; McFadden, 1992). Subsequently, these students are punished. This, in
effect, is the transmission of the hidden curriculum: certain students are academically
engaged and therefore belong in school. This message is gendered, raced and classed such
that white girls from higher income backgrounds are privileged in the elementary school
context. The hidden curriculum, therefore, reinforces institutionalized racism and classism
with the meta-communication that working class and working poor racial and ethnic
minority students, especially boys, do not belong in school.

Gender, race, social class and academic disengagement

The risk of academic disengagement is real for all students in lower income public schools
in the United States, yet research shows that the danger of academic disidentification is
heightened for African American male students (Cokley, 2002). Perhaps one reason for this
is that teachers rate African American boys as having the lowest potential for achievement
and highest for such traits as outspokenness and aggressiveness—traits that are generally
devalued in school (Cornbleth & Korth, 1980). These results help explain findings
indicating that African American boys, when compared to any other subgroup in school,
are the most feared, the least likely to identify with school and the least likely to be
effectively taught (Hale, 2001). These negative student–teacher interactions likely
lead to a perceived lack of teacher support and ‘pedagogical caring’ (Hare & Castenell,
1985).
In contrast, white girls are likely to identify with education. Their teachers generally rate
them as ideal students in that they are considered compliant, pleasant and reserved––traits
that are generally valued in school (Cornbleth & Korth, 1980; Mikel Brown, 1999).
Perhaps not surprisingly, white girls are least likely to be suspended for disciplinary
reasons (Hale, 2001; McFadden, 1992; Morgan, 1991). These findings support Hare and
Castenell’s (1985) assertion that ‘the greater the commonality of characteristics and
attitudes between student and teacher, the higher the possibility of positive outcomes’
(p 210). As most public school teachers are female, white and middle class (Hochschild,
2003), the students they most easily relate to are female, white and middle class.
The above studies provide a solid foundation for understanding student experience in
lower income schools, but there are several gaps in knowledge. There is less research that
describes academic disengagement as mediated by race, class and gender. Additionally,
much of the research that examines race, class and/or gender in schools primarily uses
these constructs as variables to be controlled for or entered into an equation. Although
these studies are important for predicting outcomes or correlating variables, they do not
describe process or experience. Indeed, as Howarth (2004) argues, ‘little is understood
about why there are such differences in educational experiences across different social
categories’ (p 362).
To understand process, we must describe the experiences of students and teachers in
schools and also show how these processes influence outcomes. This can be done with a
Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 18: 593–614 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
 Engaging contexts 597

commitment to employing ‘race, class and gender as fundamental categories of description

and analysis’ (Rothenberg, 2001, p 1) and seeing all actors in school in a contextualized
way. As students themselves experience how others ‘see’ them on the basis of these social
categories, it is essential that research does the same (Howarth, 2004). The first research
question, therefore, extends current inquiry by descriptively examining how academic
disengagement is facilitated by the hidden curriculum, and mediated by race, ethnicity and
gender in a low-income school; all of these constructs implicate power, control and
structures. Before answering this question, we turn to contextualizing teacher experience.

Understanding teacher context

To focus only on students and not also understand the effects of the hidden curriculum on
teachers is to ignore a large part of the structural context. Situating students and their
teacher also helps to avoid placing blame entirely on teachers or students, thus challenging
the dominant discourse of blame and punishment (Howarth, 2004). Once it is clear that the
intent is not to blame one group or the other, it is possible to show similarities in experience.
Teachers and students can then begin to see each other as actors and build solidarity based
on common experience. Attention can be directed to higher levels of analysis.
Context plays an important role in teacher behaviour, as research has documented that
teachers are likely to face considerable institutional pressure in low-income schools
(Edwards, 1994; Kaywell, 1987; Lewis, 1999). Consequently, the classroom environment
is often inconsistent with the teacher’s ideal (Oakes, 1985; Sarason, 1971). Indeed, when
teachers have to work in bureaucratic and tightly controlled environments, they tend to feel
constrained (Lubeck, 1988; Persell, 1977).
In schools where an emphasis is placed on order and obedience, as is usually the case in
low-income schools, teachers are often judged in terms of how well their students sit
quietly and follow directions (Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Edwards, 1994; Kohn, 1993; Persell,
1977). Indeed, teachers report feeling considerable pressure to carry out the proper ‘duties’
to make sure that students are ‘controlled’ in order to conform to established school rules
(Kaywell, 1987). The second research question, therefore, serves to situate the teacher
within this ecological context. How does the hidden curriculum challenge the teacher’s
vision of creating an engaging learning context for all students?

METHOD

Context of the study

This research took place at Bridges Elementary School2, a public school (grades K-5)
located in a mid-sized Northeastern town in the United States. The school served
approximately 200 primarily low-income students. It was the only neighbourhood school
still open in the low-income area of this city. The strategic school profile for the year this
study took place indicated that 66% of the students were eligible for free/reduced-priced
meals. Just over half the students (55.5%) were Black/African American, Latino/a, Asian/
Asian American, biracial or multiracial, which was higher than the district average
(38.2%). Few students (6.3%) met the state goal for the 4th grade Mastery Test. This
2
All names have been changed for confidentiality purposes.

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 18: 593–614 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
598 R. D. Langhout and C. A. Mitchell

percentage was considerably lower than the already low district percentage (35.2%).
Finally, the school was a Title 1 Distinguished School. This designation meant that the
school was provided funding from the state for additional programs such as Reading
Recovery and Character Education. This school’s profile is similar to many schools across
the United States.
The year this research took place was tumultuous for the school. Two years earlier, the
school was almost closed by the City Board of Education, but was kept open through parent
activism. At the end of the year before this research, the principal took a job at a new school
in the same district. During the year this research took place, there was a new young
principal who turned out to be a divisive figure. By the end of the school year, one-third of
the teachers and the principal had resigned. It is likely that the teachers were highly
stressed.
This research was conducted in a second grade classroom, which included three Black3,
three Latino and five white boys, as well as four Black, two Latina and four white girls.
Six students were labelled with learning or emotional disabilities. Six students received
Title 1 resources and two students were enrolled in an English as a Second Language
program. For a list of students with their demographics, labelling and Title 1 services, refer
to Table 1. The teacher was a young white female who had been teaching full time at the
school for 2 years prior to the year of this research. Before teaching at Bridges, she taught in
other elementary schools in the district for 3 years.

Situating the teacher

For the most part, Ms Merlin enjoyed teaching at Bridges and her actions exemplified this.
She was committed, outside and inside of the classroom. For instance, she was the coach
for the Bridges Cheerleading team. Additionally, she often spent long hours in her
classroom before and after school, planning creative activities, including student birthday
parties, Halloween mask making and student-created books. In general, Ms Merlin took
great care to make her students feel special and to make sure that they had fun. With this in
mind, it is important to understand that the results presented here are not a condemnation of
Ms Merlin’s teaching practices. Rather, they are used to delineate the challenges and
contradictions present in Ms Merlin’s classroom, which prevent her from being the best
teacher she could be.

Situating the ethnographer

Because of my long-term setting engagement and my commitment to the study participants,
the results cannot be adequately understood without including how I, the second author
of this paper, functioned as a participant-observer (Louitzenheiser, 2002; Peshkin, 1988;
Quiroz, 2001). Indeed, my social location––as a young African American woman researcher
from a lower middle class background––informs how I understand the research. With respect
to my role in the classroom, I helped the teacher in multiple ways, including running errands,
providing one-on-one student help, leading class-wide reading and writing activities and
3
Black is used instead of African American because students were not asked their race or ethnicity. Rather, this
information came from student records. Black is a broader category that includes African American, Jamaican,
Haitian, etc.

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 18: 593–614 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
 Engaging contexts 599

Table 1. Students, demographics and special services in Ms Merlin’s classroom

Name Sex Race or ethnicity Special services

Brian Male White None

José Male Latino Title I; ESL
Eric Male Latino Title I; special disability label
Steven Male Black Title I
Kevin Male White Special disability label
Damon Male Black Special disability label
James Male White Title I
Jake Male White None
Jacob Male White Special disability label
Gary Male Latino None
Kenneth Male Black None
Jennifer Female Black Special disability label
Aisha Female Black None
Emily Female Black None
Karen Female Latina None
Gayle Female Latina Title I; ESL
Crystal Female White None
Patricia Female White Special disability label
Betty Female White None
Julie Female White None
Latoya Female Black Title I
Note: All names have been changed to preserve the anonymity of the participants involved in this study; ESL,
Student receives instruction in English as a second language; Title I, Student receives extra services outside of
basic classroom instruction such as help in reading and social development.

grading homework. My immersion into the setting provided a strong foundation from which
to base the research, and allowed a more complete understanding of the cultural regularities
and practices that governed the setting (Howarth, 2004).
Due to my limited experience with this setting prior to the research, I held many
assumptions about the setting given the broader community narrative about this ‘poor’
school. I had to re-evaluate my assumptions about the ‘typical’ low-income classroom
because Ms Merlin’s room was relatively big, warm and inviting. There was carpeting on the
floor and various posters and pictures of student’s projects around the room. The children’s
desks occupied a quarter of the classroom space. Additionally, there was a section of the
room for art supplies and a reading corner with comfortable chairs. Ms Merlin’s room was
much like the type of classroom that Hale (1994) defines as aesthetically pleasing. This
design and attention to a warm and friendly atmosphere offers evidence of Ms. Merlin’s
views of the students. She strove to create a classroom space that was inviting. Because I
liked and respected Ms Merlin, it was at first difficult for me to label any of her practices as
having a negative effect on her students. This shift from low expectations to a positive
evaluation to my final more complex understanding was challenging and at times distressing
because I believe that Ms Merlin was one of the best teachers in this school.
The awareness of my own assumptions and role in the setting provided a new interpretive
lens from which to understand it. Part of the researcher’s job is to explain and attempt to
resolve the contradictions that play out in the everyday lives of the students and teacher.
These contradictions then become the basis of the data. That is, Ms Merlin’s positive values
and beliefs do not always translate into a positive experience in the classroom. This being so,
the level of analysis moves beyond individuals to higher structures.

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 18: 593–614 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
600 R. D. Langhout and C. A. Mitchell

Design and procedure

Given that the intent was to describe behaviour within an ecological context, ethnographic
participant observation was employed because this method was consistent with the
research goal (Howarth, 2004; Langhout, 2003; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Weisner, 1997).
Indeed, participant observation is useful in exploring and analysing ‘the cultural practices,
representations and values that permeate organizations and social relationships’ (Howarth,
2004, p 364).
Ethnography. The following analysis is based on a 3-month period in which the second
author was a participant-observer at Bridges Elementary School twice a week for 4 hours at
a time, for a total of 96 hours. Jottings were taken while in the setting, when appropriate,
and then expanded into fieldnotes within 48 hours. Fieldnotes were written with an
emphasis on thick description in order to capture the behaviours and actions of the
participants in the setting in real time (Geertz, 1973). Therefore, close attention was paid to
describing in detail the context of what happened. Within the fieldnotes, capital letters
indicate an emphasis on a particular word or phrase.
Analysis followed several steps as outlined by Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw (1985). After
preparing several fieldnotes, they were reviewed by both authors with an eye toward
common themes. We examined the corpus of notes, asking the following questions: What
are people doing? What are they trying to accomplish? How, exactly, do they do this? What
specific means and/or strategies do they use? How do setting members understand what is
happening? What assumptions are they making? What do I see going on here and what do I
learn from these notes? Topics and themes were then identified by the second author via a
line-by-line analysis known as open coding, in which any and all themes and ideas were
identified and formulated. Following this process, field jottings became less general and
more specific to the themes identified, with an emphasis on instances that either supported
or countered the developing hypotheses. Fieldnotes were then reviewed again to elaborate
broader themes and delineate sub-themes via a focused coding process. Both authors read
over the notes again and collaboratively developed a thematic narrative.
Behaviour chart quantitative analysis. Within the classroom, there was a behaviour
chart posted on a wall. During the day, Ms Merlin could ask any student to move his or her
name on the chart to a different colour. Names were collected from the chart in order to
assess which students had their names moved. These data formed the basis for a latent
growth curve analysis to assess if race/ethnicity and gender could predict name movement
on the behaviour chart, as well as the effects of the chart on subsequent behaviour.
Interview. After all fieldnotes were written, the second author conducted an hour-long
taped structured interview with the teacher. The protocol consisted of scheduled,
pre-ordered questions on areas that emerged from the fieldnotes. The analysis process
followed the methods explicated by Briggs (1986). The second author transcribed the
interview as the first step of data analysis. Transcription was done not only with an
emphasis on what was being said, but also on how it was said. At points, notes taken during
the interview were added to the transcription to preserve meaning. The transcript was
examined in detail, looking at the referential (i.e. the actual words) and indexical (i.e. the
underlying meanings) content. Such indexical cues include the prosodic features of the
speech and visual cues. Both authors read though the transcripts and collaboratively
determined the thematic narrative present in the interview. One last step in data analysis
was a member check (Emerson et al., 1985). Both authors met with the teacher and
Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 18: 593–614 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
 Engaging contexts 601

discussed the results with her to assess if the conclusions were accurate. The teacher agreed
that many of the issues raised were consistent with her understanding.
As this research only examines the social practices within one classroom, there are no
claims made to generalizability. The primary goal of this research is to show how the
hidden curriculum of Bridges Elementary School is embodied within the practices and
interactions of the participants in the setting, highlighting the process of student academic
disengagement from a structural-analytic vantage point. We do, however, believe these
results may be applicable to other schools that are similarly situated.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Academic engagement
Through the first research question, we sought to understand how academic disengagement
was facilitated by the hidden curriculum, and mediated by race, ethnicity and gender in a
working class school. Research indicates that the hidden curriculum is learned largely via
the disciplinary system (Giroux & Penna, 1979). The stated intent of the disciplinary
system at Bridges Elementary School was to increase student academic engagement, as
explained by Ms Merlin in her interview:
Researcher: What are the goals of having this [behaviour] system and what do you hope it will do?
Ms Merlin: Oh, um just to increase their ability to focus and to become more of an active
participant in the lesson and in conversations, so that they can really grasp the concept and relate it
to other things that, you know, they encounter in everyday life.

The following results shed light on the efficacy of the behavioural system.
Behaviour chart name moving. One prominent technique within this disciplinary
system was the behaviour chart. The chart used a colour-coding system where students who
broke rules were told to move their name from the ‘safe’ colour onto ones that signified
incremental punishments, from a warning to detention. All students started each day with
their names on the ‘safe’ colour. In her interview, Ms Merlin explained the benefits of the
behaviour chart:
They have something they can work toward. . .It’s motivating for them. . .Having the chart in front
of the room visible, and being able to keep track. Plus, you can see how they can improve.

The behaviour chart allowed a test to assess if the chart functioned as intended, or if it
served the hidden curriculum. If it functioned as intended, then name movement 1 day
should decrease future name movement. If the chart served the hidden curriculum, then
gender and race/ethnicity should predict name movement and name movement 1 day
should not decrease name movement on subsequent days.
Name movement on the behaviour chart was documented during 18 days, which
occurred over 4 months. These longitudinal data were analysed via a linear growth model
using race/ethnicity and gender to predict the intercept and slope for student name
movement on the chart. Because the sample size was small, Black and Latino/a students
were collapsed into one category and given a code of 0. White students were given a code
of 1. Girls were coded as 0 and boys were coded as 1. Finally, name movement to another
colour was coded as a 1 and no movement was coded as 0. The covariates (i.e. race/
ethnicity and gender) and the outcomes (i.e. behaviour chart name movement [1] or not [0])
Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 18: 593–614 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
602 R. D. Langhout and C. A. Mitchell

were all binary. MPlus 3.11 (Muthén & Muthén, 2004) was the statistical package used
because it can run analyses on categorical data. These data were sparse, so it was necessary
to employ maximum likelihood as the estimator.
In this growth analysis, we examined whether name movement on the behaviour chart was
systematically related to the race and gender of the student. The model produced a very good
fit (G2(302) ¼ 248.12, p ¼ .99). Given the sparse data, we also tested a series of full and
reduced models to assess fit, as recommended by Agresti and Yang (1987). We set an a priori
p value of .10 to determine which model to retain. Although this p value may seem slightly
liberal, there is precedence for this determination (Agresti, 1996). The first reduced model
used gender only to predict the intercept and slope, and there was a decrement in fit
when comparing it to the full model (i.e. the model with both race and gender as
predictors; G2(304) ¼ 258.06, difference ¼ 9.94,
x2(2), p < .01). Next, we compared the full
model to the model that included only race to predict the intercept and slope. Again, there
was a decrement in fit when comparing the full and reduced models (G2(304) ¼ 258.58,
difference ¼ 10.46,
x2(2), p < .01). Based on these results, we retained the full model,
which indicated that both race and gender were significant predictors of name movement on
the behaviour chart. In other words, boys and Black and Latino students were more likely to
have their names moved. See Figure 1 for a pictorial representation of the full model.
It is illustrative to refer to the bar graph (see Figure 2) to see this demographic pattern of
who had their name moved on the behaviour chart. Black and Latino boys had their names
moved more than any other subgroup. Importantly, not a single white girl had her name
moved during the 18-day period. These results support previous research indicating that
white girls are the least likely, and racial/ethnic minority boys are the most likely, to be
disciplined in schools (Hale, 2001; McFadden, 1992; Morgan, 1991; Townsend, 2000).
This latent growth curve analysis also allowed the assessment of changes over time; that
is if the slope was not zero, then behaviour did change over time. As shown in Figure 1, the
slope was zero, meaning that the moving of names on the behaviour chart did not change
over time. So, moving a name on the behaviour chart did not increase or decrease the
likelihood of that student’s name being moved in the future. The purpose of the behaviour

Figure 1. Linear growth model.

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 18: 593–614 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
 Engaging contexts 603

Figure 2. Mean outcome on behaviour chart by race/ethnicity and gender.

chart was to decrease behaviour that leads to name movement, but it was not having its
intended consequence. Instead, the behaviour chart seemed to support one message
implicit in the hidden curriculum by making it publicly visible to the entire class: male,
Black and Latino/a students do not know how to behave.
Based on the latent growth curve analysis, one outcome of the behavioural system was
clear; gender and race mediated name placement such that male, Black and Latino/a
students were more likely to be disciplined in this system. We are not labelling these results
as evidence of institutionalized sexism given the historic power relations in US society that
indicate that males have more power than females. These results do make clear, however,
that constricted gender roles were present and the gender roles that generally benefit men in
US society were not benefiting boys in this school, especially not Black and Latino boys.
We therefore conclude that gender bias was present and that further theory development on
these intersecting gender, race and age dynamics is necessary.
We are labelling these results as evidence of institutionalized racism. Yet, the growth
curve analysis does not shed light on the process by which institutionalized racism, and
consequently academic disengagement, is occurring. In order to understand better how
Black and Latino/a children––especially boys––bear the brunt of this system and
academically disengage, it is helpful to examine their experiences. To assess differential
involvement with the disciplinary structure and therefore the hidden curriculum, it is
important to compare and contrast their experiences to white girls.

The process of academic disengagement. Although the disciplinary rules were

designed to increase academic engagement, they had the opposite effect for Black, Latino/a
and male students. When these students were punished for failing to abide by the rules,
their engagement dropped. Also, they learned a different lesson from the stated one.
Indeed, they received the implicit message that their engagement was inappropriate and
that learning, and therefore school, was not for them.
Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 18: 593–614 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
604 R. D. Langhout and C. A. Mitchell

This learning of the hidden curriculum and drop in engagement was demonstrated by
what happened when students failed to raise their hands, even though the goal of hand
raising was to make sure that students could ‘follow you and grasp the concept that is being
taught’ (Ms Merlin interview). Consider the following two fieldnotes. In the first, José, a
Latino boy, was given a time out because his engagement in the activity was deemed
inappropriate––he failed to abide by the activity guidelines.
At another point, while the students were getting excited about a funny picture in the book, José,
who was sitting directly in front of me, yelled out of turn. He yelled out an answer, something like,
‘There the elephant is’. While he said this, he reached over and pointed to the picture. I was very
happy to see him so engaged in the story so I praised him for his answer. Just then, Ms Merlin
came over and reprimanded José for calling out an answer without raising his hand. She told him
that that was inappropriate behaviour in the reading circle and ordered him to go sit down at his
desk immediately (Fieldnote 10-10-02).

Another example further illustrates this point. Here, Kevin, a white boy, was admonished
for failing to raise his hand, although he is an active participant in the lesson.
When the students began, Kevin, who was sitting toward the back, shouted out a word without
raising his hand. His answer was a good answer; however, Ms Merlin did not acknowledge this
answer. Instead, when he called out the answer, Ms Merlin stopped and looked over at him with a
stern look and said that calling out answers was not allowed. She moved on to another person
without giving Kevin credit for coming up with [his] answer. When he first called out the answer,
he was very excited and eager to share his answer (perhaps that’s why he called out instead of
remembering to raise his hand). As soon as Ms Merlin looked over at him with the stern look, he
immediately stopped and shut his mouth and moved his head slightly downward. It’s as if his
excitement turned to disappointment and dejection in a matter of seconds (Fieldnote 10-10-02).

Consistent with Skinner and Belmont’s (1993) definition of academic engagement, José
and Kevin were on task and enthusiastic, had grasped the concepts and were excited in
relation to the learning. Because they did not follow the rules, which were designed to
increase academic engagement, they were either removed from the activity or became
despondent. The implicit message was that academic engagement and learning were less
important than following the rules and that if one could not follow the rules, one did not
belong with the other children and/or did not deserve to learn. Excitement was met with
disapproval and José and Kevin learned another lesson of the hidden curriculum: they
could not behave and therefore they could not be fully engaged in learning.
Those students who followed the rules gained currency not afforded to other students.
In the following example, an interaction between Ms Merlin and José, a Latino boy, is
compared to an interaction between Ms Merlin and Crystal, a white girl.
While Ms Merlin headed toward the board to explain the first two problems of their morning
worksheet, José (whose desk is right next to where she was standing) stopped her and began to
comment about something on her sweater. (I couldn’t tell what he said but I saw him pointing to
something and making a comment about it.) José seemed really excited about whatever it was
he was pointing to. As soon as he said this, however, Ms Merlin immediately stopped him. She
motioned for him to move his hand. She then declared, in a firm tone, ‘MY TURN, MY TURN’ As
soon as Ms Merlin said this, José slowly sat back in his chair and it seemed that his excitement and
happiness turned into despondency and disappointment (Fieldnote 10-31-02).

During circle time, while Ms Merlin was going over a problem, Crystal slightly raised her hand
and interrupted Ms Merlin. When Ms Merlin responded, Crystal pointed to Ms Merlin’s pin on her
shirt, and remarked, ‘I like your pin’. Ms Merlin smiled and said thank you (Fieldnote 11-7-02).

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 18: 593–614 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
 Engaging contexts 605

Juxtaposing these two interactions helps to illuminate the varying experiences that
different students had in the classroom, which reinforced the hidden curriculum. In both
instances, a student interrupted Ms Merlin to pay her a compliment about her clothing. A
difference, however, is that José did not raise his hand when he interrupted Ms Merlin;
Crystal, however, did. José was reprimanded for failing to abide by the rules, which set the
stage for the unpleasant subsequent interaction between Ms Merlin and José. Essentially,
he was rebuffed in his efforts to connect with Ms Merlin. In contrast, the interaction
between Ms Merlin and the hand-raising Crystal was positive. The hidden curriculum was
extended such that a Latino boy learned that along with his academic engagement, his
personal engagement was not supported in the school context. Further, the white girl’s
personal engagement was supported.
Not only did the current system facilitate disidentification for boys, especially Black
and Latino boys, but these students were also confused by what counted as misbehaviour.
In the following fieldnote, Ms Merlin reprimanded Damon, a Black boy, for talking too
much.

About a second later, Ms Merlin looked over at Damon with the same stern look. She then said,
‘Go move your name’. (She did not say specifically that Damon’s name needed to be moved.) It
looked as if Damon did not know that Ms Merlin was referring to him. When Ms Merlin said, ‘Go
move your name’, Damon looked around confused with a half smile on his face. At one point, he
looked over at Betty, a white girl who sat next to him. (He looked at Betty as if to ask whether Ms
Merlin was referring to Betty.) Just then, Ms Merlin responded. She said, ‘Betty was doing what
she was supposed to do. YOU’RE talking to her’. She then told him for the second time to go move
his name. . . [In the next activity, Damon was told to move his name again.] Damon hesitated as if
he were trying to explain something to Ms Merlin. Ms Merlin, however, pointed to the board. A
couple of seconds later, Damon was in tears. He went to move his name. Damon moved his name
from the white to the yellow (recall that he already had his name up from another offence.) When
he went back to sit down, Damon immediately put his head down on his desk, still in tears
(Fieldnote 10-31-02).

What is revealing in this interaction was that Damon did not realize that he was in
trouble. Ms Merlin made a point of saying that Betty was behaving. His behaviour, in the
eyes of Ms Merlin, did not improve, so he had to move his name a second time, which led to
subsequent disengagement from the classroom activity. This state of affairs is particularly
problematic because the behavioural system rests on the assumption that both the students
and the teacher know the rules and that the rules are fairly implemented. If students do not
know that their behaviour is considered inappropriate, then they cannot change it.
Additionally, if the rules are so rigidly enforced that that there is no room for student
explanation, then students learn that they have no voice in the process. On this day, Damon
learned another message of the hidden curriculum: white girls do not get into trouble, but
Black boys do, even if they do not think their behaviour is inappropriate. Further, there is no
recourse in a system where the teacher is the police, judge and jury.
Results from research question one indicated that student academic disengagement was
facilitated by the hidden curriculum, and this experience was mediated by race, ethnicity
and gender. Additionally, the behaviour system had the opposite effect of Ms Merlin’s
intentions––increased student academic engagement. Similar to previous research (Bear,
1998; Hale, 2001; McFadden, 1992), racial and ethnic minority boys were more likely to be
punished for what was interpreted as misbehaviour, which led to subsequent academic
disengagement. From an in-depth look into Ms Merlin’s classroom, it is evident that even
as young as second grade, this pattern is developing. Indeed, Black and Latino boys had the

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 18: 593–614 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
606 R. D. Langhout and C. A. Mitchell

highest rate of disciplinary actions, they tended to have more negative interactions with Ms
Merlin and they were frequently reprimanded for what she viewed as inappropriate
behaviour. They were implicitly learning the main lesson of the hidden curriculum: they
had no voice in the classroom, learning was not for them and therefore school was not a
place for them.
Even in the face of the hidden curriculum, students still made choices that showed their
agency. Indeed, the mere fact that students, usually Black and Latino males, still provide
correct answers without following the rules––even after they have been punished––
indicates their desire to be seen as smart, capable and competent students. They do not let
the rules stop them from showing the teacher and other students that they are intelligent.
This is a choice that they make among a set of choices limited by the hidden curriculum and
the schooling structure.
Our analysis reveals the social psychological consequences of power inequalities in the
public sphere. In the context of the hidden curriculum, which is taught through the lesson
that student engagement can only be shown in particular ways and at particular times, the
students are given little chance to experience power and control. Yet, children need
opportunities with personal control and empowerment if they are to excel in school
(Langhout, 2004; Prilleltensky et al., 2001). In Ms Merlin’s classroom, the students’
opportunities to acquire self-determination, especially for Black and Latino boys, are often
unintentionally hindered, and this pattern leads to their disidentification with school. These
findings support the argument that structures of power and inequality are sustained through
social representations and practices, which exclude certain others on the basis of social
categories (Howarth, 2004). This argument also strengthens the conclusion that the hidden
curriculum institutionalises racism.
Research into school exclusion, especially regarding racial and ethnic minority students,
needs to examine how excluding practices are sustained (Howarth, 2004). Our research
results do provide a conceptualization from which school exclusion can be examined, but
within this framework, it is essential to know more about how the teacher is positioned. So
far, we have only presented half of the story. Therefore, we now turn our attention to
research question two.

Situating the teacher within the hidden curriculum

In order to yield a more holistic analysis of how exclusionary practices were constructed and
sustained, it is important to understand how the teacher was positioned and experienced the
hidden curriculum. Following this, the second research question describes the institutional
pressure Ms Merlin faced based on the hidden curriculum and how this obstructed her vision
of creating positive and engaging learning contexts.
Positioning Ms Merlin. We experienced Ms Merlin as one of the most progressive
teachers at Bridges Elementary School. In 2 years of working with her, she never talked
about the children or their families using a deficit-based model. In fact, quite the opposite
was true. In her interview, she was asked about the reputation of Bridges students and if the
reputation was deserved. She replied:
I have to be totally honest. . .These children are the ones who appreciate it and they are the ones
who try (R: Right), and, and they like to be here . . .They’ll work on anything, they’ll work with
you on anything (R: Umhm), um, and they’re the ones that want to learn and, and they really, really
will. . .I like to feel that (R: Yeah), you know, that need and to, to see them succeed by the end of

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 18: 593–614 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
 Engaging contexts 607

the year (R: Right). Um, so I, I enjoy it and I, I don’t really. . . find that reputation fitting (R: Ok).
You know because they are a lot (R: Umhm), (long pause) a lot more willing to work hard, I have
to say.

Ms Merlin knew her viewpoint was at odds with many of the teachers in the building and
this put her in a difficult position. She said as much in the following fieldnote:
In the classroom, Ms Merlin continued talking to me about how some of the teachers share a
different philosophy than her on education. Basically what I got from Ms Merlin’s comments was
that she really wants to have fun with her kids and be a little freer with them. According to
Ms Merlin, she’s not too popular among most of the teachers because they think she’s too lax. And
so, although she loves to have fun with her kids, she feels this constant pressure to conform to the
other teachers’ ways of doing things even though she would like to do things her own way
(Fieldnote 11-1-02).

Ms Merlin had an astute awareness of the reasons why her beliefs were not always
congruent with her practices. In this excerpt, she explained the inconsistencies between her
ideals and the constraints she felt regarding how she should run her classroom.
The pressure Ms Merlin felt from other teachers was evident. Ms Merlin usually
emphasized the fact that all of her students were good students. Yet, she sometimes acted
in accordance with the hidden curriculum, perhaps in an effort to avoid criticism and to
maintain authority. The hidden curriculum was a structural limitation for Ms Merlin, which
served to challenge her autonomy as a creative teacher. Thus, it becomes clear why Ms
Merlin’s own beliefs were not always congruent with her practices. A closer look at these
institutional pressures sheds light on Ms Merlin’s context.
Institutional pressure. Like students, teachers are socialized into the hidden curriculum.
For teachers, some of this socialization occurs via cooperation. In her interview, Ms Merlin
emphasized the fact that teaching is a profession where teachers share:
Researcher: Um, had you planned on using these specific [behaviour modification] techniques
before teaching here at this school? Or was it something that just, you know, just came about as
you talked with other teachers or went to workshops or. . .

Ms Merlin: Um, you know you do get to pick up a lot (R: Umhm). And you do, you learn from
each other (R: Yeah), you know, which is helpful and I have to say that teaching is a profession
where a lot of people are willing to share, you know, share materials, share ideas, and stuff like
that, so they’re very open to suggestions, to ideas, and things like that, so you do just going along,
you pick things up.

This sharing was important to Ms Merlin because ‘as a teacher, she does not get that
much training in behaviour and discipline because everything is about the curriculum and
making sure that the students have mastered the material’ (Fieldnote 11-1-02).
Ms Merlin’s response revealed just how much teachers were in communication with
each other. Although this cooperation was beneficial, it could also be a source of pressure.
Because they share information, teachers might feel that they must conform to what other
teachers are doing if they are to be seen as ‘good teachers’. Consequently, Ms Merlin felt
torn between doing what she wanted and being a part of the teacher culture in which all
teachers were expected to conform, at least minimally, to particular methods.
Ms Merlin received many messages about what it meant to be a ‘good teacher’. Within
this process, other teachers often watched Ms Merlin to see how her students were
behaving. Moreover, Ms Merlin knew that she was open to criticism by other teachers and
Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 18: 593–614 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
608 R. D. Langhout and C. A. Mitchell

administrators at any given time, especially because she was a relatively new teacher.
Usually, the criticism was not about teaching methods, but instead about her lack of
rule enforcement. This in and of itself was revealing in that rules appeared to receive
more attention than academics and was therefore a parallel in the hidden curriculum for
the teacher and her students. In the following example, a veteran third grade female teacher
confronted Ms Merlin’s class for their misbehaviour, after Ms Merlin had just finished
reminding her students to behave.

While the students were walking down the second landing, another teacher started yelling at Ms
Merlin’s class. As soon as she entered the stairwell, she yelled, ‘WHOSE CLASS IS MAKING
ALL THAT NOISE?’ When she saw that it was Ms Merlin’s class, she started yelling more,
commanding the class to be quiet and behave themselves. The teacher continued yelling, ‘Oh,
well my class, TELL THEM WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO’ (Her class was not a full class. There
were about five or six boys in front of her, most of them Black and Latino. The boys looked very
despondent and angry.) In unison, they replied to the question, ‘Walk up and down stairs four
times during recess’. The boys said this in a kind of rote fashion with absolutely no enthusiasm or
feeling. The teacher remarked to Ms Merlin’s class, ‘Yeah, so you better learn how to behave
before you get to third grade’. She continued saying that she won’t tolerate any misbehaviour
(Fieldnote 10-17-02).

By another teacher yelling at Ms Merlin’s class in front of her, Ms Merlin’s authority was
questioned. She was regarded as weak and ineffectual based on the behaviour of her class.
Further, she was treated as a bad teacher who needed another teacher to handle her students.
Additionally, this teacher signalled that it was Ms Merlin’s job to control her students so
that they would behave ‘properly’ once they got to third grade. Ms Merlin received this
lesson of the hidden curriculum loud and clear––control your students or they will be
punished and you will be evaluated as a bad teacher for not preparing your students for
success.
Although the bulk of criticism Ms Merlin received was aimed at how her students
behaved in communal spaces, she also received criticism on the way she ran her classroom.
Consider the following interaction between Ms Merlin and two other teachers, Ms Oller
and Ms Brittan.

Ms Oller immediately responded with a loud and excited voice, ‘OH I WAS RIPPED’ She
continued on to say that she doesn’t usually yell at her children but today, she had enough and she
just went off on them. She explained the reason why to us. She said that her students were all going
crazy because some guy in a big red costume was walking through the hallway. Ms Oller
continued on to say that this guy caused a huge stir throughout the whole school as all of the
students got really loud and started running into the hallway and screaming. Immediately after
this, Ms Merlin apologized and explained to Ms Oller and Ms Brittan that this guy was coming to
her class because she just started a new project with her kids. Ms Oller did not seem to be paying
attention to what Ms Merlin was saying to her. She continued to talk about how it’s not Halloween
anymore and the costumes need to stop because it disrupts the school day. Ms Oller made a
sarcastic remark, something like, ‘What? Did some people just not have enough Halloween for
1 day? So they have to have 2 days?’ (Fieldnote 11-1-02)

Ms Merlin was blamed and criticized for causing the school to become so ‘chaotic’. This
incident suggests that Ms Oller’s view was widely supported within the school. If it was not,
it would be unlikely that she could openly and publicly condemn Ms Merlin. The interaction
between Ms Oller and Ms Merlin provides more evidence as to why contradictions exist in
Ms Merlin’s classroom. Ms Merlin would like to engage her students in fun and exciting
ways. At points, however, this can cause the classroom to become seemingly chaotic to
Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 18: 593–614 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
 Engaging contexts 609

outsiders. Thus, in an effort to bring the ‘chaos’ level down to the accepted level and not
be publicly chastised, Ms Merlin had to compromise her own beliefs about what an
academically engaging classroom looked like, and this compromise led to student academic
disengagement and disidentification.
In describing the structural constraints of this setting, it is not our intention to minimize
Ms Merlin’s agency. Rather, like our analysis of the students, we believe that Ms Merlin has
agency with a restricted range of choices. For example she had received little to no training
regarding behavioural management, so she relied on the experience and the cultural
practices of other teachers. Shunning the accepted school disciplinary practices would be
difficult given that she was in a liminal, or ambiguous transitional, space already. Indeed,
she was a young untenured teacher who was not terribly popular among the other teachers
because of her ideology and teaching philosophy. Given her already limited capital, her
comfort in resisting this system and keeping her job seemed unlikely. That said, she did
make choices regarding how to use the disciplinary system. For example children were
given warnings or time outs before moving their names on the behaviour chart.
Additionally, she brought people dressed in goofy costumes into her classroom, to help
make learning fun. These forms of resistance do speak to Ms Merlin’s agency in this rigid
and prescribed system.
The hidden curriculum at Bridges is a structural limitation for Ms Merlin, and this fact
helps to provide a more holistic and complex understanding of power and inequality. Even
Ms Merlin does not have as much power and control as she would like to within the context of
the hidden curriculum. Students and Ms Merlin have limited opportunities to express their
voices. Examining the school ethos and understanding the ways in which all actors in a social
setting experience and participate within the power structure helps to shift the focus away
from blaming particular individuals. What is then highlighted are the structures and
discourses that maintain power inequalities within the educational system (Howarth, 2004).

Summary of results
The first research question asked how academic disengagement was facilitated by the
school’s hidden curriculum and mediated by race/ethnicity and gender in this working class
school. The hidden curriculum at Bridges Elementary School was taught primarily through
the disciplinary system and held that boys and Black and Latino/a students misbehaved and
therefore did not belong in school. These findings are consistent with the literature (Bear,
1998; Hale, 2001; Howarth, 2004; Ladson-Billings, 1994) and support the conclusion that
the hidden curriculum institutionalizes racism.
The disciplinary code and subsequent hidden curriculum have several implications for
the learning process. At times in Ms Merlin’s classroom, there was an emphasis placed
on getting the students to show focus and engagement in particular ways. A student who
did not express engagement in an activity at the right time and in the right way was
reprimanded for misbehaving. In this setting, students had little opportunity to express their
voices and to experience self-determination and self-efficacy, which had the unfortunate
effect of discouraging active participation and feelings of competence within the academic
domain (Prilleltensky et al., 2001). Although this affects all students to some extent, the
hidden curriculum had a disparate impact on Black and Latino boys. What could be
conceptualized as high student engagement was at times read as misbehaviour, which had
the effect of facilitating student academic disengagement and disidentification.
Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 18: 593–614 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
610 R. D. Langhout and C. A. Mitchell

An analysis of the effects of the hidden curriculum on student behaviour is not complete
without consideration of the ways in which the teacher may feel pressure to conform. The
purpose is not to blame the teacher, but instead to show how teacher experience parallels
student experience. Following this, the second research question asked how Ms Merlin’s
vision of creating a positive and engaging learning context interacted with the hidden
curriculum.
Similar to other schools that serve lower income students, Bridges was a setting where
teacher competence was evaluated by that teacher’s control of students (Delpit, 1995;
Edwards, 1994; Kaywell, 1987). As a result, Ms Merlin’s teaching practices were not
always in line with her personal beliefs. She also had to respond to a school setting that
evaluated teaching effectiveness via student discipline and control. Thus, we see that Ms
Merlin’s voice was also restricted and she was hindered by the hidden curriculum.

Moving toward action

The primary goal of this research was not simply to restate what we already know of the
grim statistics of how lower income students, especially racial and ethnic minority boys,
fare in US public schools. Instead, our goal was to move a step beyond restatement, sheding
light on why the statistics are so, linking teacher and student experiences and perhaps more
importantly showing that there is hope. We cannot give up on our commitment to ensure
quality education for all students. It is possible that school can be that ideal place in which
all students have the opportunity to achieve the self-actualization that Dewey (1916)
encouraged us to strive toward.
This research reveals the parallel that exists between teachers and students and provides
implications for best processes for school reform. Like students, teachers are rewarded for
their compliance with the rules and norms that govern the hidden curriculum. Indeed, even
teachers are obstructed in their efforts at questioning the hidden curriculum; consequently,
it remains invisible. It is important to reveal the way the hidden curriculum influences
teacher behaviour.
What can be done to support Ms Merlin in critically examining the hidden curriculum?
Ms Merlin lives in the United States, where the dominant narrative holds that non-racists
are ‘colour-blind’ (Banks & Banks-McGee, 1999; Ladson-Billings, 1994). This colour
blind perspective is held by Ms Merlin and revealed when she was asked in her interview,
‘Do you feel a student’s behaviour is related to their race or gender?’ She replied:
(Moving back, showing marked discomfort). . .I find no. No. I find that it depends on. . .um (long
pause). . .you know each child is an individual. . .and it um, I think it would depend on you
know. . .how they’re feeling that day. You know, if they had a bad night, you know, and they come
in, you can look at the kid and say, you know, this might not be such a great day. Um, and, you
know, you. . .really have to be aware of that. But I, I would say, I mean I’ve only been teaching for
6 years, but from what, what I’ve. . .my experiences, what I’ve seen, I don’t think that it is, you
know, the specific race or gender.

By keeping hidden the way race, ethnicity and gender are enacted during classroom
interactions, Ms Merlin leaves the status quo unquestioned. When teachers are more aware
of the differential demographic patterns of behaviour and discipline that exist in their
classroom, they are more likely to understand how their interactions are related to
differential student outcomes (Bigg & Edwards, 1991). What could be an opportunity for
Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 18: 593–614 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
 Engaging contexts 611

Ms Merlin to disrupt the dominant narrative and challenge the hidden curriculum instead
leads to its further legitimization.
In order for Ms Merlin to challenge these dominant narratives, she needs to have support
from school leaders. Indeed, our own findings provide support for Sarason’s (1995)
assertion that teachers work within societal structures and therefore cannot single-
handedly create different student learning contexts. Consequently, school change can only
happen when multiple stakeholders are involved in the process (Felener, Fayazza, Shim,
Brand, Gu, & Noonan, 2001) and is more likely when leadership provides support for
change. This support could take the form of school leaders raising race, ethnicity and
gender as important issues, through bringing in guest speakers and also putting these topics
on meeting agendas. Additionally, schools can have open discussions of the purpose and
goals of disciplinary systems, also examining their disciplinary patterns by race, ethnicity
and gender. All schools should have community-wide conversations about how to create
systems that do not have differential outcomes for students based on race, ethnicity
and gender.
As social-community psychologists, we were in a difficult position after conducting this
research. We felt obligated to engage in some action given the findings, but also knew that
our results indicated that the hidden curriculum was a school-wide issue and as such, the
appropriate level of analysis for an intervention was not Ms Merlin’s classroom. An
intervention in Ms Merlin’s classroom seemed doomed to failure given her social position,
the institutional context, and the fact that the hidden curriculum was institutionalized.
In the end, we decided an appropriate strategy was to look for moments of opportunity to
engage the entire school in its disciplinary code. We did not have to wait long for this
opportunity.
One year later, the school decided to formalize and adopt a school-wide disciplinary
system. The next year, we were asked to evaluate the program. In our evaluation, we
examined whether race/ethnicity and gender could be used to predict who was disciplined
(they could) and whether the disciplinary code was leading to fewer student referrals
(it was not). These results were given back to the school in the form of a technical report.
The principal was open to this analysis and said that it was important to get the good news
and the bad news out in the open. We believe she was able to talk about these results with
her school staff because of the support of the new district superintendent who, upon taking
the job, ran some district-wide analyses by race and gender and initiated community-wide
conversations regarding who the school was serving and how. Within this context, our
technical report provided the basis for some important faculty-wide discussions regarding
the purpose of the disciplinary code. In the next academic year, some teacher-initiated
changes were made to the implementation of the disciplinary system and we plan to
evaluate the effects of those changes.
We think that looking for an opportunity to evaluate the disciplinary code school-wide
was a better option because we believe the chances of our evaluation leading to school-
wide sustainable change were greater than an intervention at a lower level of analysis or an
evaluation that did not include the disciplinary policy. The school change process must
include an interrogation of the goals of schooling and how those goals are achieved
(Sarason, 1995). Examining the hidden curriculum is one way to assess the implicit goals
of schooling.
Another step in creating a different student context is creating a different teacher context.
Attention must be given to school staff’s professional development (Felener et al., 2001;
Sarason, 1995). It is evident that teachers do not receive enough training on how to

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 18: 593–614 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
612 R. D. Langhout and C. A. Mitchell

understand student behaviour. This limitation is not covered extensively in the literature.
Teachers need to be given the tools and time to become action researchers within their own
domains, especially around discipline and learning. We believe that this has begun at
Bridges Elementary School. The principal has implemented a program whereby teachers
receive data from our research team regarding their behaviour referrals on a monthly basis,
along with a year-long technical report. It is unlikely that disciplinary measures will change
until teachers see for themselves how specific techniques are having the opposite effect of
what is intended (i.e. greater academic engagement).
Teachers need not determine alone how to create an effective behaviour management
program. Sarason (2004) suggests that students spend at least the first week of school
debating a code of conduct, including the pros and cons and how the rules align with the
greater school goals. Student participation in setting the rules and subsequent evaluation of
the behavioural system can increase student agency and critical thinking skills. Though this
may seem to be an unrealistic suggestion to some, our research team does have experience
setting recess behavioural policy with students and recess duty aids. Our observation is that
the conversations and participation illuminate the similarities in experience for both
groups, helping to bring them closer together and opening up conversations that would
likely not occur otherwise. This general process is one way that students and teachers can
work together to make the classroom a better place for all.
Based on the results of this research, it is also important to note that teachers need
training in levels of analysis, ecologies and organizational management, not just individual
management. This training should include cultural differences in student behaviour and
disciplinary practices, including ways to assess institutionalized racism, classism and
gender bias because school discourse seems to hold that oppression can only occur based
on intent. Intent, however, is not the important factor; the outcome is.
In moving toward action, the focus should be on creating conditions that allow for
conversations about the purpose and goals of school, as well as facilitating teacher and
student empowerment. When this is done, both groups will be freer to talk openly about
their experiences, and take risks in the classroom without concern about being watched or
criticized. In this way, the classroom would be a much more engaging and supportive
environment for students and teachers alike.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors thank the students and teacher who made this research possible. Also, thanks
are due to Jonathan Feinstein and David Streit for a careful reading of this article.

REFERENCES

Agresti, A. (1996). An introduction to categorical data analysis. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Agresti, A., & Yang, M. (1987). An empirical investigation of some effects of sparseness in
contingency tables. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 5, 9–21.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goal, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 84, 261–271.
Banks, J. A. & Banks-McGee, C. A. (Eds.), (1999). Multicultural education: Issues and Perspectives.
Toronto: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Bear, G. G. (1998). School discipline in the United States: Prevention, correction, and long-term
social development. School Psychology Review, 27, 14–32.

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 18: 593–614 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
 Engaging contexts 613

Berstein, B. (1971). Class, codes, and control (Vol. 1). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bigg, A. P., & Edwards, V. (1991). I treat them all the same: Teacher-pupil talk in multiethnic
classrooms. Language and Education, 5, 161–176.
Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Education reform and the
contradictions of economic life. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Briggs, C. L. (1986). Learning how to ask: A sociolinguistic appraisal of the role of the interview in
social science research. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cokley, K. O. (2002). Ethnicity, gender, and academic self-concept: A preliminary examination of
academic disidentification and implications for psychologists. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 8, 378–388.
Cornbleth, C., & Korth, W. (1980). Context factors and individual differences in pupil involvement in
learning activity. Journal of Educational Research, 73, 318–323.
Cowen, E. L. (1996). The ontogenesis of primary prevention: Lengthy strides and stubbed toes.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 235–249.
Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: WW.
Norton and Co.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New
York: The Macmillan Company.
Edwards, C. (1994). Learning and control in the classroom. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 21,
340–346.
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, I. R., & Shaw, L. L. (1985). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Felener, R. D., Favazza, A., Shim, M., Brand, S., Gu, K., & Noonan, N. (2001). Whole school
improvement and restructuring as prevention and promotion: Lessons from STEP and the project
on high performance learning communities. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 177–202.
Fine, M., Burns, A., Payne, Y. A., & Torre, M. E. (2002). Civic lessons: The color and class of
betrayal. Unpublished manuscript.
Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement
and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 148–162.
Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In C. Geertz (Ed.), The
interpretation of cultures: Selected essays (pp. 3–30). New York: Basic Books.
Giroux, H., & Penna, A. (1979). Social education in the classroom: The dynamics of the hidden
curriculum. Theory and Research in Social Education, 7, 21–42.
Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Hale, J. E. (1994). Unbrink the fire: Visions for the education of African American children.
Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.
Hale, J. E. (2001). Learning while black: Creating educational excellence for African American
children. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.
Hare, B. R., & Castenell, L. A., Jr, (1985). No place to run, no place to hide: Comparative status and
future prospects of black boys. In M. B. Spencer, G. K. Brookins, & W. R. Allen (Eds.),
Beginnings: The social and affective development of black children (pp. 201–214). New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Hochschild, J. L. (2003). Social class in public schools. Journal of Social Issues, 59, 821–840.
Howarth, C. (2004). Re-presentation and resistance in the context of school exclusion: Reasons to be
critical. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 14, 356–377.
Kaywell, J. (1987). Control in classrooms: A disturbing situation. The High School Journal, 7,
203–207.
Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A’s, praise, and
other bribes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Kozol, J. (1991). Amazing grace: The lives of children and the conscious of a nation. New York:
Crown.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Langhout, R. D. (2003). Reconceptualizing quantitative and qualitative methods: A case study
dealing with place as an exemplar. American Journal of Community Psychology, 32, 229–245.
Langhout, R. D. (2004). Facilitators and inhibitors of positive school feelings: An exploratory study.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 111–127.

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 18: 593–614 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
614 R. D. Langhout and C. A. Mitchell

Langhout, R. D. (2005). Acts of resistance: Student (in)visibility. Culture and Psychology, 11,
123–158.
Levine, D. Lowe, R. Peterson, B. & Tenorio R. (Eds.). (1995). Rethinking schools: An agenda for
change. New York: The New Press.
Lewis, R. (1999). Teachers coping with the stress of classroom discipline. Social Psychology of
Education: An International Journal, 3, 1–17.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Louitzenheiser, L. W. (2002). Being seen and heard: Listening to young women in alternative
schools. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 33, 441–464.
Lubeck, S. (1988). Nestled contexts. In L. Weis (Ed.), Class, race, and gender in American education
(pp. 43–62). Albany: State University of New York Press.
McFadden, A. (1992). A study of race and gender bias in the punishment of school children.
Education and Treatment of Children, 15, 140–146.
McMillan, C. B. (1975). Organizational change in schools: Bedford-Stuyvesant. The Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 11, 437–453.
Mikel Brown, L. (1999). Raising their voices: The politics of girls’ anger. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Morgan, H. (1991). Race and gender issues: In school suspension; Paper Presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Chicago, IL, 3–7 April, 1991).
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2004). Mplus user’s guide: Third edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén
& Muthén.
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Ouellett, M. L. (1996). Systemic pathways for social transformation: School change, multicultural
organization development, multicultural education, and LGBT youth. Journal of Gay, Lesbian, and
Bisexual Studies, 1, 273–294.
Persell, C. H. (1977). Education and inequality: The roots and results of stratification in America’s
schools. New York: The Free Press.
Peshkin, A. (1988). In search of subjectivity-one’s own. Educational Researcher, 17(7), 17–21.
Prilleltensky, I., Nelson, G., & Peirson, L. (2001). The role of power and control in children’s lives:
An ecological analysis of pathways toward wellness, resilience and problems. Journal of
Community & Applied Social Psychology, 11, 143–158.
Quiroz, P. A. (2001). The silencing of Latino student ‘voice’: Puerto Rican and Mexican narratives in
eighth grade and high school. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 32, 326–349.
Rappaport, J., Moore, T., & Hunt, G. (Co-Chairs). (With Mattison, E., Pearce, N., Bracey, J., Reyes
Cruz, M.). (2003). June It’s not about education: Schooling for African-American and Latino
students. Symposium conducted at the 9th Biennial Conference on Community Research and
Action, Las Vegas, NM.
Rios F. A. (Ed.). (1996). Teacher thinking in cultural contexts. New York: State University of New
York Press.
Rothenberg P. S. (Ed.). (2001). Race, class, and gender in the United States: An integrated study
(5th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.
Sarason, S. B. (1971). The culture of the school and the problem of change. Boston: Allyn and Bacon,
Inc.
Sarason, S. B. (1995). Parental involvement and the political principle: Why the existing governance
structure of schools should be abolished. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sarason, S. B. (1997). The public schools: America’s Achilles heel. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 25, 771–785.
Sarason, S. B. (2004). And what do YOU mean by learning? Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher
behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85,
571–581.
Townsend, B. L. (2000). The disproportionate discipline of African American learners: reducing
school suspensions and expulsions. Exceptional Children, 66, 381–398.
Weisner, T. S. (1997). The ecocultural project of human development: Why ethnography and its
findings matter. Ethos, 25, 177–195.
Wilson, K. G., & Davis, B. (1994). Redesigning education. NY: Henry Holt and Company.

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 18: 593–614 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/casp