With regard to the hidden curriculum in Jay's last note, I could not help
but remember about the hidden curric. in graduate school when dealing with
anti-poverty early age interventions. We were taught, in what seemed then a
most liberal and benevolent discourse, that teaching middle class
interaction patterns and values early on to families (so disadvantaged),
was what was needed to help "them" or more specifically, their children,
thrive in school. Fixing the culture would establish compatibility with
schools as they have been organized, and even out the cultural
distributions in school achievement.
The Coleman report lent support since inequality was not really associated
with school variables. The curriculum went from fixing them to fixing the
schools and teachers later to the present multiculturalism route. None of
these worked except for those afore mentioned. Yet the hidden curriculum,
particularly in psychology, remains, churning out well intentioned experts
just like teacher education programs turn out more culturally sensitive
teachers...etc
Unfortunately, the misconception or illusion stemming from these not so
well hidden curricula is that we have actually diagnosed the problem
correctly, and that we know how to reduce inequality. Geez, the cures
proposed by "our" social science appear to ascerbate the prob.
If we "know", and our practices (or applications)follow from this knowledge
and "they" are still caught in the cycle, and there are more children
destined to poverty than ever, where does this leave "them"?
(if we keep ruling out it is this or that). Hidden indeed. pedro
At 04:17 PM 4/4/98 -0800, you wrote:
>>
>>Dear Xmca-ers,
>>
>> Are there any examples of curricula which adopt Lisa Delpit's
>>view that kids should be taught the hidden curriculum of the school
>>(or which adopt other forms of explicit instruction about dominant
>>forms of instructional culture?). I assume that Goldenberg and Gallimore's
>>work on instructional discourse falls into the latter category, but
>>cannot find a handy article/ref and my assumption could be wrong. It
>>sure wouldnt be the first time!
>>mike
>>
>>