When we talk about what students learn in the classroom, we often focus on the content taught. However, educational institutions also teach and evaluate other types of skills that rarely appear in the curriculum. Knowing when to participate in class, how to write a news story, how to argue an idea, how to interpret ambiguous instructions, or even how to ask for help are skills not everyone has had the opportunity to develop.
But this idea is not new; it comes from the French researcher Pierre Bourdieu, who proposed that school success depends not only on intelligence or individual effort but also on how people learn to relate to knowledge and the educational system itself. Bourdieu called the way of thinking, learning, and developing in academic spaces “scholastic disposition.” This concept is still relevant to understanding why students with similar abilities can have very different educational experiences.
Recent research continues to support this idea. Understanding these expectations can help build more inclusive educational environments, where student success depends less on struggling with implicit rules and more on the opportunities schools offer to learn them.
What is scholastic disposition?
For Pierre Bourdieu, school not only transmits educational content, but it also promotes a particular way of relating to it. He describes this way of thinking and acting within the academic world as scholastic disposition, a set of habits and ways of learning that allow us to function more easily in educational spaces.
The ability to analyze ideas, question arguments, enjoy intellectual discussion, or value knowledge beyond its immediate usefulness is neither innate nor automatically developed; it is shaped by the family, social, and school situations each person experiences.
Bourdieu argued that many educational institutions assume that all their students arrive with these abilities already developed, when in reality, not everyone has the same opportunities to acquire them. As a result, some students adapt more quickly to school dynamics, while others must learn, in addition to a subject’s content, the implicit rules on how to study, participate, and demonstrate what they know.
A study conducted with 1,012 students in their last year of secondary school, or the first year of high school under the U.S. model, found that those who exhibited a greater scholastic disposition also reported higher levels of strategic learning competencies, such as self-regulation, perseverance, and the attribution of success to one’s own effort. In addition, these students performed better on standardized reading comprehension and mathematics tests. The authors concluded that this disposition may shape how students approach academic challenges and leverage learning opportunities, although they recognized that other personal and contextual factors also play a role.
This does not mean some students are naturally made for school; rather, it raises an important question: what happens when institutions expect all students to know how to function in an environment whose rules were never explicitly taught?
The Hidden Curriculum: The Rules That Are Rarely Taught
Scholastic disposition also depends on people’s experiences inside and outside school, as well as on the expectations institutions implicitly convey. This set of norms, values, and behaviors learned outside the official curriculum is known as the hidden curriculum.
Unlike the formal curriculum, which establishes the content students must learn, the hidden curriculum comprises the invisible rules that guide school life. It includes things like knowing when to intervene in a discussion, how to work as a team, what it means to participate “correctly” in class, and how to communicate with teachers and classmates. Although these skills rarely appear in curricula or learning objectives, they shape how students experience their education and the opportunities they have to succeed.
In a publication, Mark Dziak highlights that the hidden curriculum comprises the norms, values, and expectations transmitted through school culture, everyday interactions, and institutional practices. Although these teachings are not usually explicitly evaluated, learning them can influence both students’ academic development and social integration.
Learning to organize time, interpret vague instructions, write an email to a teacher, argue a position, and ask for help when difficulty arises are skills often acquired through observation of others or trial and error.
Lacking these skills does not mean some students have greater ability than others. Rather, it shows that educational institutions often assume all students share the same understanding of how to participate in the learning process in school. When the rules for these skills remain invisible, those who do not know them may interpret their academic difficulties as a lack of skill, when in fact they never had the opportunity to learn them explicitly.
Ignoring or misunderstanding the school’s implicit rules can have consequences that extend beyond poor academic performance. Explaining the expectations can help build more inclusive educational environments, where student success does not depend on knowing implicit rules. Not knowing can also influence how a student perceives their place within the institution. If they consistently feel they don’t understand what’s expected of them, that they’re participating “incorrectly,” or that they’re always one step behind the rest, they may start to question whether they really belong there.
In recent years, this topic has deepened through the concept of academic belonging, i.e., the perception of being valued, respected, and able to function successfully within an educational community. A publication from MIT argues that strengthening this sense of belonging involves creating environments where students see their experiences, ideas, and contributions as important, and offering opportunities to participate actively in learning.
In addition, research suggests that this feeling does not depend solely on social relationships. A Frontiers in Psychology study identified two dimensions: social belonging, the feeling of being accepted by others, and academic belonging, which is confidence in being able to meet the intellectual demands of the university environment. After analyzing responses from 837 students, the authors found that academic belonging was more strongly associated with school performance than social belonging, suggesting that feeling able to learn and function within the institution may be as important as feeling welcome.
From this perspective, the problem is not just that some students are unaware of how to perform as students in school; rather, this lack of clarity can lead them to believe they lack the skills to be there. In many cases, the feeling of “not belonging” arises not from a lack of capacity but from institutional expectations that remain implicit and are rarely taught.
This finding urges us to rethink a common idea in education: when a student has difficulty adapting, the response should not always focus on “learning to adjust.” Sometimes, it is responsible to question whether the institution has made visible the rules, practices, and expectations it takes for granted that students already know.
If the hidden curriculum influences how students experience school, one question is inevitable: What can a school do to reduce its invisible barriers?
Instead of assuming students arrive at school knowing how to function, various education specialists agree on the importance of making these expectations explicit. This means clearly explaining how to write a good essay, participate in a debate, collaborate as a team, and the criteria for evaluating a project. It also means modeling these skills, offering examples, providing feedback, and creating spaces where asking questions is seen as a natural part of learning rather than a signal of inability.
MIT points out that promoting a sense of belonging also requires designing experiences in which students feel respected, heard, and can contribute. Some strategies include communicating high expectations with support, diversifying voices and examples in class, encouraging peer collaboration, and creating opportunities for students to recognize that difficulties are part of the learning process, not a lack of talent.
These actions may seem small, but they highlight that students’ success in school depends less on discerning implicit rules and more on the opportunities the institution offers to students to learn them. In other words, they help students learn skills that previously remained hidden in the educational process.
After all, teaching is not just about transmitting disciplinary knowledge. It also involves supporting students in learning the practices, strategies, and ways of thinking that will allow them to function confidently inside and outside school.
Schools do not train students only through the content in their curricula. They also do so through expectations, norms, and forms of participation that, though rarely named, influence who adapts more easily to the academic environment. Understanding concepts such as scholastic disposition, hidden curriculum, and a sense of belonging helps us see that learning happens far beyond books and exams.
Making implicit rules visible does not mean reducing the demands of learning or simplifying it. It means giving all students equal footing in understanding how the academic world works, instead of assuming everyone arrives with that knowledge. Perhaps one of the most effective ways to build a more equitable education is precisely to teach what has long been taken for granted.
