ABSTRACT
Despite theoretical and political differences, these two lines of work have important similarities. First, both recognize that the hidden curriculum of schooling provides socialization for the transition from the home and family to the world of work and the wider society. Second, both perspectives view the school as a mediator for prevailing norms. Third, both include individual effort and competitiveness as well as respect for authority figures as key attitudes in the home-to-work transition, although for Dreeben this socialization is politically neurral, whereas for Young and his colleagues it suppOrtS the prevailing political and economic system. Fourth, both arguments were originally put forth on conceptual grounds, with little systematic empirical corroboration. Following Young's approach, a few empirical case studies have supported and elaborated the theoretical formulation. Observing a comprehensive secondary school in Britain, Keddie (1971) showed that teachers' views of students in different ability levels, or "streams," affected the way they interacted with students and the extent to which studenes' ideas were legitimated in the classroom. Questions posed by A-stream students typically fit within the conceptual framework of the lesson, and they were
treated as legitimate inquiries by teachers. In contrast, questions from C-stream students often challenged the assumptions of the lesson, and teachers dismissed them as irrelevant. Thus, students who rank higher in the school's hierarchy (typically, students from higher status origins) find their concerns and interests validated, while lower ranking students are left out.
