Vallance (1973)  notes that there are three dimensions of hidden curriculum:  (I) Contexts of schooling,

including the student-teacher interaction unit, classroom structure, and the whole organizational pattern of

.the educational establishment as a microcosm of the social value system. (2)  Processes operating in or

through schools, including values acquisition, socialization, and maintenance of class structure.  (3)

Degrees of intentionality and depth of  „hiddenness‟ by the  investigator.   She claims that there might be

unintended outcomes of schooling; however, these outcomes may not be nearly as unintended as one

thinks (Arieh, 1991). Schools are considered as the places where educational ideologies are performed to

maintain existence of dominant cultures. 

Accordingly, Bowles and Gintis  published a  book “Schooling in Capitalist America” (1976)  in which

they argue from a Marxist perspective that refers to the authority structure of schooling. They develop a

„correspondence thesis‟ in which the key principle is that „a structural correspondence‟ occurs between

the social relations of school life and production.  In other words, the values  and culture of middle and

upper-class are dominant throughout school life however, the  low-class students are lack of them and

suppressed. From this perspective, social inequality is reproduced through hidden curriculum. 

Also, Paul Willis (1976)  introduces the concept of resistance that he argues  the school‟s  role in social

reproduction, Willis claims, resides not merely in some dominant and invincible institutional

determinants, but also in the cultural forms produced by the „lads‟ in their resistance to the authority of

the school (Gorden 1984). According to Willis, the hidden curriculum of the school structure is important

in determining the reproduction of class relations in schools. Otherwise,  it  should be understood as  the

hidden curriculum of cultural production  when  defining  the dynamics of social and cultural

reproductionism (Lynch, 1989).   

From another perspective, theorists including Michael Apple, Jean Anyon, and Henry Giroux  describe

how hidden curricular practices provided. Their common point is that social reproduction emerges with

the inclusion of the social organization of the school and the authority relationships between teachers and

students.   

Apple (1982) defines the hidden curriculum in a way that pointed to the concept of hegemony. He argues

that  the concept of hegemony shapes the school  in many respects and defines schools as not  just

distributors but also producers of culture that are vital for the socialization of students. In other words,

students encounter various norms and cultures through rules and activities during their school and

classroom life that form the social life in the school. Also, in another work, “Ideology and Curriculum”,

Apple (2001) identifies that the hidden curriculum corresponds to the ideological needs of capital. Lynch

(1989) emphasizes  that Apple regards  the manner of distributing high-status curricular knowledge as a

core element of the hidden curriculum of reproduction. 

Jean Anyon (1980) published an article entitled "Social Class and the Hidden Curriculum of Work".  In

her article, she reports the findings of a study in five schools in which investigated  how children of

different economic classes receive very different types of educations. For that reason, Anyon compared

two working-class schools, one middle class school, an upper middle class school, and an elite school.

She  found a connection between the social class of the students, the type of education they receive in

school, and the type of work.  She observed that children in poor schools were prepared to become

obedient laborers, while children in elite schools were prepared to become original thinkers and leaders.

She notes that her article attempts a theoretical contribution as well and assesses student work in the light

of a theoretical approach to social-class analysis. 

Henry Giroux (2001) identifies schools as political institutions, inextricably linked to the issues of power

and control in the dominant society.   Citing Giroux, Giroux and Penna (1979), he noted that the schools

mediate and legitimate the social and cultural reproduction of class, racial and gender relations in

dominant society. When comparing with Bowles and Gintis, Giroux considers that it is possible for

students to resist powers in schools. In other words, school  environment can  enhance individuals‟

understanding of power in society; accordingly, provide new possibilities for social organization.

Another theorist Martin (1976), defines hidden curriculum as a set of learning states, ultimately one must

find out what is learned as a result of the practices, procedures, rules, relationships, structures, and

physical characteristic which constitute a given setting.  Therefore, a hidden curriculum cannot be found

directly just for seeking, the researcher should examine it and search for reasons behind the events.