1.10.3 (a) The value of the Theory of Social Class and the hidden curriculum of work to education
Anyon’s (1980:67) Theory is concerned with unjust education practices (in the USA) that train and prepare learners from the upper socio-economic backgrounds towards the acquisition of capital, power and influence in society. However, the afore-named opportunities are withheld from learners from the low socio-economic stratum of the society. Anderson (2005:4), using this Theory as a basis for evaluating the education system in the USA, argued that there exists a need for policy change with regard to education practice in order for learning to occur. This study aims to investigate if policy decisions (i.e., the curriculum skill coverage) lead to learner dropout. This makes it relevant to evaluate the study by means of the afore-named Theory’s (Anyon, 1980:67) theme of ‘the hidden curriculum’.
The curriculum defines what learners are taught in school. If the curriculum is misguided, the entire education system will equally be misguided. The relevance of the abovementioned Theory is further discussed in the following section (cf. 1.10.3(c). The importance of the Theory of the Social Class and the hidden curriculum of work to education is its ability to work with other disciplines, such as the empiricists, thereby becoming an academic bridge for empirical debates and investigations. Education is a social phenomenon. If Education Policies reproduce injustice, this will be transferred throughout the society, leading to vices, disparities, and the degeneration of the youth. By means of academic debates and investigations the above Theory improves learning. Leonardo (2010:161) summed up the value of theories as,
‘Education in its finest hour’.
1.10.3 (b) The Theory of Social Class and the hidden curriculum of work
Anyon’s (1980:90) Theory of Social Class and the hidden curriculum of work states that social reproduction takes place by design in order to ensure that the activities of the society (i.e. education practice) sustain capitalism. He (1980:67) further posited that the purpose of
27
education differs greatly among the various socio-economic backgrounds of the student population. He (1980:67-68) argued that a hidden curriculum exists within the implemented curriculum, which paves the way for pre-determined career opportunities for the learners. This, according to him, is the sorting of learners into social classes that pre-determine their career choices into vocational or professional, depending on their social classes.
Anyon (1980:73-76) argued that the schools of the working class use teacher-centred teaching methods and summative assessment, and give rewards to learners based on their compliance with school directives, which prevents the development of the learners’ decision-making capabilities in society. The elite schools, however, make use of child- centred teaching strategies and active learning, which help to develop the learners’ analytical and intellectual power, thereby empowering them to have an influence in the society (Anyon, 1980:83-89). Anyon (1980:89-90) averred that the disparities in education practice, as described above, prepare the socio-economic advantaged learners to develop their capabilities of the acquisition of capital, creativity, linguistics, art, and negotiation, while simultaneously preparing the learners of a low social status for the industrial class, the abilities of resistance, and the rejection of exploitation (Anyon, 1980:87-88). Thus, while learners in the upper strata of society view and believe that the achievement of education provides access to better jobs and more earning power, learners in the lowest stratum know that the achievement of education will not provide access to better jobs (Anyon, 1980:76 & 86).
Anyon (1980:90) concludes that there is a hidden curriculum within the schools that involves a different curriculum, pedagogy and the evaluation of learners of different socio- economic classes. Although the same teaching syllabi were in use in the same grades across schools of learners from different socio-economic backgrounds, the differences in practice, (i.e., access to learning material and resources, and the teaching strategies adopted), prepared the learners into different socio-economic classes, depending on the learners’ social classes. To remedy this anomaly, Anyon (2005:65-88) conducted follow-up research and used his findings to recommend a new paradigm of Education Policy that seeks school change. The recommendation requires a transformation of the education system through equitable education across all social classes, the creation of conditions that will allow
28
reforms to take root, to grow and to bear fruit in the learners’ lives. This will prepare all the learners in the schools for economic and political independence (Anyon, 2005:88).
1.10.3 (c) The importance of the Theory of Social Class and the hidden curriculum of work for the current study
This Theory is relevant to the problem of the study because it is not only true for the USA, but also for Botswana. The MOESD’s objectives of education, which stress equity, access, and the distribution of resources to all learners are non-existent when some learners, due to a nomadic lifestyle, disability, or poverty, do not have access to basic education (Tomasevski, 2006:1; Pheko, 2006:1). The Theory is equally relevant in its hidden curriculum concept. Though the Examinations Act and the BGCSE syllabi specified the assessment of course-work to contribute 50% towards certification (cf. 3.3.2; and 3.7), only subjects labelled practical currently include 50% course-work towards the award of the BGCSE certificate (BEC, 2010:25).
Furthermore, a Science subject such as Pure Biology only has a 20% weight in its practical aspect, and Single or Double Award Biology has no course-work at all towards certification (BEC, 2010:25). The BEC’s course-work assessment disparities between subjects, despite the course-work stipulations of the Examinations Act, made it clear that there are hidden curricula within the prescribed one (cf. 1.4 and 3.3.2). Anyon’s (1980:73-76) remark is equally true regarding the adoption of a teacher-centred strategy by the teachers, instead of the DCDE’s prescribed strategies of learner-centred and active learning. The lack of the use of the Theory’s prescribed teaching method of active teaching by the teachers (cf. 1.10.3(c)), could be contributing to learner dropout.
The implications of the above-named theories for the study are discussed in the following section. This is necessary, because the research problem was investigated by means of the abovementioned theories.