Ideology, hidden curriculum, and student resistance in Thailand

• In Event: Highlighted Session: Social Movements, Ideology, and Resistance: Thailand, Malaysia, and Myanmar

Proposal

Schools function as a place not only for the distribution of knowledge but also for the propagation of ideology (Apple, 2001). The dissemination of ideology takes place through diverse channels, including the implementation of rules and regulations, instructional methodologies, and both overt and covert curriculum (Apple, 1979; Giroux, 1983). The hidden curriculum includes, among others, rewards and punishments, orderliness, and spatio-temporal arrangement (Kerstetter, 2016). The main objective of this study is to examine the influence of ideology, as communicated through the hidden curriculum, and its implications on student resistance. The study investigates the hidden curriculum of spatial arrangement, school uniform and hairstyle, and discipline in six secondary schools in Thailand, which are classified into three categories: two inner-city schools, two selective schools, and two alternative schools. Educational goals and student demographics vary by school type. Inner-city schools teach working-class children technical skills to improve their job prospects. Selective schools value academic excellence. Alternative schools attempt to develop well-rounded, multi-talented students. This study draws from a broader research project that interviewed nine administrators, 36 teachers, 43 students, and 31 parents. Classroom interactions, schools’ physical organization, and school activities were observed. In this study, I use Anyon’s (1981) framework of reproductive and nonreproductive school knowledge to examine the impact of ideology transmitted through the hidden curriculum. Reproductive school knowledge pertains to the knowledge that supports and sustains the ideologies, practices, and privileges that form the existing economic and political structure. In contrast, nonreproductive school knowledge facilitates the transformation of ideologies and practices.

The findings suggest that inner-city schools used physical space to control students’ behaviors: classroom rear doors were locked to prevent students from wandering during class, marking tapes were used to indicate standing positions in the gymnasium, and canteen queueing racks were installed. Believing that students could control their own behaviors, selective schools did not use physical arrangements, verbal admonishments, or corporal punishments to control them. The emphasis on academic excellence is evident in the display boards, which incorporated educational content. The alternative schools' humanistic educational philosophy was shown by the organization of students into groups, the use of adaptable seating arrangements that allowed students to move around in class, and the incorporation of resources that enabled hands-on learning outside the classroom. Reasoning was employed as a primary disciplinary approach. Unlike in inner-city schools and selective schools where stringent dress codes and hairstyle policies were enforced, students in alternative schools negotiated with officials and parent-teacher associations for a weekly free-uniform day, including the option to dye, perm, or shave their hair. LGBTQIA+ students in alternative schools can wear gender-appropriate uniforms.

The results of the study reveal that school uniforms and strict hairstyle policies implemented in inner-city schools and selective schools caused resentment and opposition among students. The school uniform and required hairstyle policy, which were adopted in Thailand around 1939, are justifiable on the grounds of equality and uniformity (Potjanalawan, 2022). However, the underlying ideology is that students must relinquish control over their bodies to school authorities. This is the very first lesson Thai schoolchildren learn about the unequal relationship between individuals and state authorities. School rules on uniforms and hairstyles have been the most conflicting issue that has ignited student protests. In 2020, a student activist group called "Bad Students" protested in front of the Ministry of Education against the ban on casual attire in schools (Bad Students, 2020). In June 2023, a student activist was denied her right to attend classes because she did not abide by the school rule on uniforms and hairstyles ("How is Thailand’s education system", 2023). This sparked public outrage and led some schools to soften their uniform policies ("BMA relaxes hairstyle", 2023). Thus, the hidden curriculum of strict control over attire and hairstyles can be considered nonreproductive as it promotes the critical examination and alteration of ideology and practices. This holds true for both inner-city and selective schools but does not apply to alternative schools. According to interviews, alternative school students said that they were content with the autonomy afforded to them in terms of uniform and hairstyle choices.

Students in inner-city schools resisted the hidden curriculum of strict control through spatial arrangement, verbal reprimands, and physical punishments by misbehaving, skipping classes, and dropping out. In the long run, this hidden curriculum is reproductive because it reproduces the working class by discouraging students from continuing their education, which disadvantages them further in their future employment. In selective schools, spatial arrangements, such as bulletin boards intended to promote students' academic excellence, are viewed as reproductive because they perpetuate students' class advantage. These schools emphasized the accumulation of knowledge to prepare students for university admission. The display boards did not include issues such as protests and conflicts, which deprived students of the chance to critically question inequity in society.

Author

• Thithimadee Arphattananon, Schools in Thailand Project