Hidden Curriculum Analysis

1116 Words5 Pages
According to Cerecer (2013), hidden curriculum refers to those policies and rules implemented by the school leadership that “[seek} to socialize students to embrace and legitimize a universal system of knowledge.” Particularly at Hilltop High School, there were two administrative decisions that advanced this hidden curriculum. First, a part-time policeman was hired for the school, despite the school’s lack of violence. Consequently, this “caused participants to wonder whether it was their racial identities as American Indians that caused the school leadership to implement [this] decision” (605). The second administrative decision was the enforcement of a dress code. As a result of the dress code, “Students characterized the school uniform…show more content…
Rather, it could be more accurately described as a “practice.” Regardless, all of these aspects of the hidden curriculum are socializing students and leading them to embrace and legitimize a universal system of knowledge because it is treating and characterizing them as individuals they are not. The presence of the police officer and an enforced dress code conveys the narrative that these students are inferior and need policing. Subsequently, this dehumanization leads the students themselves to accept and legitimize the universal system of knowledge that they are inferior. There are three examples of hidden curriculum that manifested itself at my high school, however, they must be placed within a proper context first. My high-school was a private, all-boys, Catholic school, meaning that for the most part, the school was justified in whatever policies it decided to implement. When students came to my school, they came with the expectation that they would have to conform to many of the school’s ways. Therefore, for example, the dress code may have been problematic for Hilltop High School, however, for Holy Cross School, this wouldn’t have…show more content…
In sociology, judgments are not made on whether something is actually and objectively wrong or right. For example, to define something as a social problem, this issue must be defined as a “social problem” by the society that is under study. Regardless if the issue is objectively right or wrong, if the society doesn’t deem it a social problem, then it is not a social problem. This understanding must be applied to trying to determine if knowledge is universal or relative. The claim is not being made that all truth is absolute or relative. What is being said is that universal systems of knowledge can become predicated on by the dominant group of people. Concerning the article, what is being argued is that American Indian students are being led to embrace and legitimize a universal system of knowledge. Now, on the surface, one may wonder how could conditioning them to accept and legitimize universal truths be an issue. However, this line of thinking stems from the faulty understanding of sociological claims as previously discussed. What must be understood is that what makes this system of knowledge “universal” is not because they are absolute truths; they are universal because the dominant group has the power to make the knowledge system seem to be a universal truth. The dominant group has the power to delegitimize knowledge that runs counter to its prevailing

More about Hidden Curriculum Analysis

Open Document