The Hidden Curriculum; Hegemony and Capitalism.

and economic reasons.            The power of grading and assessing students is largely related to developing a social stratification within schools. Through academic streaming students are being moulded into classes such as a working class or higher class. This is simply achieved through segregating those students who display academic talents and providing them with more adequate opportunities, that in the long term assist them to benefit from improved occupational status and income.  Students who are supplied with lower marks are categorized as those more likely to join a subservient working class labouring sector of the work force.  Essentially, through using this type of power, schools are controlling students' destinies.  Those students who are academically challenged are often not given the opportunities of their counterparts and thus, do not realize or have the confidence to develop their full potential (Young and Whitty, 1997: 105).  I will use an example straight from my own high school experience to illustrate this, take for example, the choice between choosing a university bound stream (what is known as the 'advanced' courses and another set of courses known as 'medallion' courses) versus a vocational or college bound stream (the general courses).  In terms of all the arts courses that I had taken in high school, I was increasingly encouraged to take the 'medallion' courses in French and English, whereas, when it came to the technical courses such as Math and Science (courses which I was not as strong in, but still had a lot of interest in), I was told to enrol in all the 'advanced' courses that would be 'required' for my entrance into the university program that I wished to get into.            Looking back on my high school days, I can now see how streaming was a part of my own educational experience, because the students who were recommended and placed in the 'medallion' classes had parents or families who were well enough along economically speaking so that they could afford to go on extra class excursions or afford to participate in exchange programs as part of the curriculum.  In this way, the 'medallion' classes were not necessarily based on the students' academic abilities, but on their economic and social status as well.  In Ontario, it has been shown that, "Students are not streamed in any random way: rather, children of working-class, ethnic/racial minority and single parent families end up in the lower streams in highly disproportionate numbers," (Curtis, Livingstone & Smaller, 1992: 53).  There are both explicit and implicit modes of streaming.  The explicit mode of streaming is the kind of streaming done through the labelling or stereotyping of students based on learning disabilities, special needs or behavioural problems, whereby separate classes and even separate schools have been created in order to provide these students with the appropriate education.            In the case of students with special needs, whether they are students with 'exceptional' needs or learning disabilities, there is no specific guideline as to how to identify such students.  It is most often left up to the teachers and the school boards to decide the placement of each student.  The implicit mode of streaming can be recognized as the unintended or less obvious forms of discrimination within the classrooms.  Often times discrimination is relayed through the omitting of information and stereotypes, things that we may not always be conscious of.  We could use the stereotype of most doctors being male, while nurses are thought of as being female as an example of this.                      The use of stereotypes and labels combined with teacher's expectations in schools, expectations of what students can do and will do, plays a very big part in their education.  When students come into a school, teachers make judgements on their ability, based on many different things.  These labels are, for example, 'bright', 'able', 'thick', 'less able', 'practical', 'academic' etc.  However, these labels are not neutral, nor do they describe the real possibilities of students, but are based on common-sense knowledge of what type of student is 'good' and which 'bad'.  Thus, it has been shown that teachers have stereotypes linked to class ('from broken homes'), gender ('she is just a girl'), race ('Asians are good in Math') and even physical attractiveness ('blonds are not as smart').  Teachers then act towards students on the basis of such stereotypes  for example, those students who are labelled 'bright' are given more time to answer questions than those who are seen as unlikely to know the answer anyway.  To quote Curtis, Livingstone and Smaller (1992: 62), "being labelled 'different' often results in a vicious cycle of lowering self-worth, reaction or resistance to this situation, further labelling and control, and further depreciation of self-worth."  This is an example of what Robert Merton in his, Social Theory & Social Structure (1957) refers to as, the "self-fulfilling prophecy" where the label of being called 'not smart' or 'is a slow learner' is then internalized and as a result, the false label now becomes true because the student believes it him or herself.            In all cases, the role of the teacher as an agent of social control is extremely important in assessing the role of the hidden curriculum in maintaining gender, race and class inequality. One illustration of this is when a teacher's own attitude towards the role of education for women and men influence his or her relationship with students.  Curtis, Livingstone and Smaller (1992) found that in mixed classrooms, boys received more attention from the teachers, thus, benefiting from the teacher's attention and distracting from the amount of time spent with the girls.  It was also found that behavioural programs were mostly populated by boys.                      There are two obvious ways in which teachers' judgement of students may have an impact on the social distribution of achievement. First, as several studies have shown, teachers' expectations can colour their assessment of a student's performance, such as is the case with the self-fulfilling prophecy.  In the Curtis, Livingstone and Smaller (1992) study, school teachers rated children whom they thought came from a middle-class background as better able to read than those whom they believed to be from working-class homes; standardized tests did not.   The results revealed a marked difference in the reading level of these two groups of children.  In cases such as this, teachers' assessments of students reflect their views of what middle-class and working-class students should be capable of, rather than their actual performance.  Second, teachers may, because of low expectations, make fewer attempts to stimulate students' interest in learning, or to overcome areas of weakness.          The hidden curriculum and streaming operates through a correspondence between the structure of schooling and the economic system.  The nature of work and social relations fostered in the education system mirror those in capitalist society; for example, students obey orders, students have no control over the curriculum, students gain little intrinsic satisfaction from work.  This mirrors or corresponds with the student's future position in the workforce.  The worker has no control over work and experiences little intrinsic satisfaction.  Schools act to furnish the economy with a labour force provided with the appropriate skills, personalities and attitudes.  This is the 'hidden' function of schooling because it is contrary to the prevailing ideology of schooling which views the school as a device to promote social reform and social mobility.  The hidden curriculum through its use of streaming programs is a form of hegemony.  Hegemony is a theory created by Antonio Gramsci which, "refers to a social consensus created by dominant groups who control socializing institutions such as the media, schools, churches, and the political system; these institutions prevent alternative views from gaining an audience or establishing their legitimacy," (DeMarrais & LeCompte, 1999:17). Hegemony focuses on how we incorporate dominant ideology into our thoughts, thereby giving mental consent.  This process is called internalization, which in turn is a form of socialization.  It is because of this internalization that people come to accept labels and stereotypes, and therefore are kept in their place.  Thus, they continue to reproduce the dominant social structures and maintain the dominant ideology of the time.  In relation to education, hegemony is achieved and inequality sometimes goes unnoticed through the use of rewards based on merit.  This appears to make the education system seem fair, in that it   assumes equality of opportunity and occupational advancement based on achievement rather than ascription.  Hegemony is the legitimizing of inequalities within the school system.  These are all ways in which the government or dominant groups of society through the use of the education system try to establish and maintain their sense of coercion or domination over the people.            In his article entitled, "Multiculturalism or Ethnic Hegemony: A Critique of Multicultural Education in Toronto," Aminur Rahim discovered that, "a dominant ethnic group, by virtue of its political power, plays a crucial role in formulating and implementing social policy to strengthen its privileged status.  In the process, the hegemonic ethnic group succeeds in mediating the dominant practices and values to other subordinate ethnic agencies through the education institutions of the dominant ethos," (Rahim, 1990: 29).  In other words, the education system is important both on an economic and cultural level.  Rahim found that here in Toronto, the education system served as a means of social and cultural control or coercion, (Rahim 1990).  This just reinstates what Gramsci would say, "every relationship of 'hegemony' is necessarily an educational relationship," (Gramsci, 1971: 350).  In other words, hegemony involves the learning (socialization) of individuals through the use of institutions.  Through this socialization, a consensus is obtained and maintained where the beliefs of the existing dominant structure and groups (in this case, capitalism) are in control.            For Marxists, the analysis of education focuses upon the workings of a capitalist economic system and the degree of conflict within society between social groups, notably between the ruling capitalist class (bourgeoisie) and the working class (proletariat).  The education system is seen as a tool by which the working class are kept in their place, in a position of subservience, exploited and oppressed. What Marx and Marxists would say is that ideas are not neutral.  They are determined by the existing relations of production, by the economic structure of society.  Ideas change according to the interests of the dominant class in society. Antonio Gramsci coined the phrase "ideological hegemony" to describe the influence the ruling class has over what counts as knowledge.  For Marxists, this hegemony is exercised through institutions such as education, or the media.            Marxism can inform the discourses of education because it can explain where schools come from, because schools are part of the superstructure which rise from the economic base, the totality of relations which are independent of the individual's will and which constitute the economic structure of society.  The superstructure consists of the legal, political, religious, intellectual forms through which life is known and lived, schools are a part of this superstructure. The institutions we build, the philosophies we adhere to, the prevailing ideas of the time, the culture of society, are all determined to some extent or another by the economic structure of society. The political system, the legal system, the family, the press, the education system are all rooted, in the final analysis, to the class nature of society, which in turn is a reflection of the economic base.  Marx maintained that the economic base or infrastructure generated or had built upon it a superstructure that kept it functioning.  The education system, as part of the superstructure, therefore, is a reflection of the economic base and serves to reproduce it.  This does not mean that education and teaching is a sinister plot by the ruling class to ensure that it keeps its privileges and its domination over the rest of the population.  There are no conspirators hatching devious schemes.  It simply means that the institutions of society, like education, are reflections of the world created by human activity and that ideas arise from and reflect the material conditions and circumstances in which they are generated.          Educational institutions and the hidden curriculum play a major role in the socialization of students.  As some educational theorists see it, the educational system is the roof of the problem of modern industrial society.  Schools are the most important stage in the creation of the mindless, conforming and easily manipulated citizens, (Young & Whitty, 1977: 101).  Some views evolve around the concept of the hidden curriculum remaining linked to the economy within capitalist society.  In this view the hidden curriculum is largely linked to providing students with the social roles that they are likely to adhere to in their future lives. It is providing a social stratification system for the students while they are still at school.  This approach to understanding the hidden curriculum incorporates many negative elements.  Looking from a Marxist perspective schools may be seen as institutions for guiding social control, (Young & Whitty, 1977: 102).  In their book, The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels maintained that "The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class," (Marx & Engels, 1998: 24).  What they meant by that is that the individuals who make up the ruling class of any age determine the agenda.  They rule as thinkers, as producers of ideas that get noticed. They control what goes by the name "common sense".  Ideas that are taken as natural, as part of human nature, as universal concepts are given an image of neutrality when, in fact, they are part of the superstructure of a class-ridden society. In his The German Ideology, Marx explained that each new class which puts itself in the place of the one ruling before it, is compelled, simply in order to achieve its aims, to represent its interest as the common interest of all members of society, for example, to give its ideas the form of universality and to represent them as the only rational and universally valid ones, (Marx, 1976).  Ideas become presented as if they are universal, neutral, and/or common sense.            In this way the hidden curriculum and streaming may be seen as those things the students learn through the experience of attending school rather than the stated educational objectives.  These skills develop a motivation for extrinsic rewards, in students creating a subservient workforce, and assisting students to accept hierarchical division of subjects in order to correspond with a fragmented workforce, particularly in relation to high school, university and college.  All of these hidden skills largely correspond with a capitalist society and the relationship developed within the schools and those found within the work place.  Overall, the education system helps to reproduce, contribute and benefit the modes of production of the dominant class, capitalist society through the use of hegemonic means.  However, can there be evidence of such a link between education and the economy even after efforts have been made to reform the hidden curriculum within schools?          Although schools today are not so much responsible for churning out a docile, obedient work force, students are being trained to conform to the needs of society through education.  Currently in society, it may be seen that employers are looking for students who have high academic skills.  In order to maximize the production and develop and utilize the most complex range of technology, employers are looking for workers who are overqualified for specific jobs.  It is obvious the economy is largely influencing students to further their education in order to attain employment, as they are being encouraged to attend colleges and universities accordingly, such as information technology institutes and business schools.  Hierarchies within schools are also likely to prepare students for hierarchies in the workplace.  Just as there is a form of social control present within the work place, there is also an authoritarian hierarchy evident within educational institutions.  An example of this can be taken from my own university experience, where it is clearly evident that programs geared towards computers and science are seen as more important than programs for the arts, especially with the new expansion of the Computer Science Building on the Keele campus.  Computers and technology is where the future is headed and that means more money and more capital.             It would appear that the hidden curriculum has much influence over the socialization of students today.  How to combat the hidden curriculum as it stands, is beyond many sociologists and economists, as its creation is largely connected to the operation of wider society and until this social structure changes, educational institutions will remain the same.  In some cases the de-schooling and destructuralizing of schools has been one theory largely considered and implemented in some cases to combat marketization of education, (Young & Witty, 1977).          How do we go about changing the hidden curriculum to allow students to gain a more liberated and less structured form of education, when the very society from which educational institutions arise advocates authority, conformity, stratification and appropriate social values and attitudes?  It remains difficult for any educational system, despite a number of reforms to deviate from the social networks evident within society.  Although the hidden curriculum has been exposed, the social, political and economic values that it conveys will not Disappear.  If schools are seen as a replica of society, then until the structure of society changes the hidden curriculum will be here to stay. BibliographyCurtis, Bruce,  D.W. Livingstone & H. Smaller.  "Chapter Three: Streaming in the Elementary School." Stacking the Deck: The Streaming of Working-Class Kids in Ontario Schools.  Toronto: Our Schools/Our Selves Education Foundation, 1992.  DeMarrais, Kathleen Bennett & Margaret D. LeCompte.  The Way Schools Work: A Sociological Analysis of Education.  3rd ed.  New York: Addison Wesley Longman, 1999.  Elliott, Julia, ed.  The Oxford Paperback Dictionary & Thesaurus.  New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.Gramsci, Antonio.  Selections from the Prison Notebooks.  New York: International Publishers, 1971.  Macionis, John J., Juanne Nancarrow Clarke & Linda M. Gerber.  Sociology.  2nd Canadian ed. Scarborough: Prentice Hall Allyn and Bacon Canada, 1997.Marshall, Gordon, ed.  Oxford Dictionary of Sociology.  New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.  Marx, Karl.  German Ideology.  3rd ed.  Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976.Marx, Karl & Friedrich Engels.  The Communist Manifesto.  Ed. David McLellan.  New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.   Merton, Robert King.  Social Theory & Social Structure.  New York: Free Press, 1968.Rahim, Aminur.  "Multiculturalism or Ethnic Hegemony: A Critique of Multicultural Education in Toronto."  The Journal of Ethnic Studies.  18.3 (1990): 29-46.  Young, Michael F.D. & Geoff Whitty.  Society, State and Schooling: Readings on the Possibilities for Radical Education.  Rimger: Falmer Press, 1977.