Schools are one of the most important means of cultural transmission. The view emerged that for a society to hold together, there must be certain core values and goals – some common traits of culture – that the different groups shared to a greater or lesser degree. This core culture may also be open to change. A school’s curriculum often reflects the ability of organized groups of concerned citizens to impose their views on an educational system, whether local, statewide, or nationwide. Thus, it is a political process.

Since India’s independence, multilingual education has become an educational and political issue. Proponents believe that it is crucial for children whose primary language is not English to be given instruction in their native tongues. They believe that by acknowledging students’ native languages, the school system helps them make the transition into the all-English mainstream and also helps preserve the diversity of Indian languages and cultures.

Others see a danger in these programmes. They believe that many multilingual education programmes never provide for the transition into English, leaving many youngsters without the basic skills needed to earn a living and participate in our society.

In the end, the debate centres on how closely our sense of who we are as a nation hinges on the language our children speak in school. Pro tempore, the only agreement between the two sides is that language is the cornerstone for cultural transmission.

The Conflict Theory View

To the conflict theorist, society is an arena for conflict, not cooperation. In any society, certain groups come to dominate others, and social institutions become the instruments by which those in power control the less powerful. The conflict theorist thus sees the educational system as a means for maintaining the status quo, carrying out this task in a variety of ways. The educational system socializes students into values dictated by the powerful majority. Schools are seen as systems that stifle individualism and creativity in the name of maintaining order. To the conflict theorist, the function of the school “is to produce the kind of people the system needs, to train people for the jobs the corporations require and to instill in them the proper attitudes and values necessary for the proper fulfilment of one’s social role (Szymanski and Goertzel 1979).

In India, schools have been assigned the function of developing personal control and social skills in children. Although the explicit, formally defined school curriculum emphasizes basic skills such as reading and writing, much of what is taught is oriented away from practical concerns. Many critics point out that much of the curriculum (other than in special professional training programmes) has little direct, practical application to everyday life. This has led conflict theorists and others to conclude that the most important lessons learned in school are not those listed in the formal curriculum but, rather, those that involve a hidden curriculum. The hidden curriculum refers to “the social attitudes and values taught in school that prepare children to accept the requirements of adult life and to fit into the social, political, and economic statuses the society provides” (Tischler 2011).

To succeed in school, a student must learn both the official (academic) curriculum and the hidden (social) curriculum. The hidden curriculum is often an outgrowth of the structure within which the student is asked to learn. Within the framework of mass education, it would be difficult to provide instruction on a one-to-one basis or even in very small groups. Consequently, students are usually grouped into relatively larger classes. Because this system obviously demands a great deal of social conformity by the children, those who divert attention and make it difficult for the teacher to proceed are punished. In many respects, the hidden curriculum is a lesson in being docile.