Literacy With An Attitude 2/13

Patrick Finn argues in Literacy with an Attitude that your social class and economic factors determine the type of literacy and education you receive. Lower class/middle-class students receive functional literacy, which creates productive dependable people, and more affluent/higher-class students get powerful literacy which allows for more access to opportunities. 

One of the things that stood out to me in reading chapter two, while comparing the different schools- the middle/working class to affluent- was an idea around child movement, regulation, and control. For example, on page 11, when talking about a working class school: “students were ordered to remain in their seats unless given specific instruction to move. When permitted to leave the room they needed a pass with the time and date.” While in affluent schools: “not more than three children could be out of the room at one time…they merely signed their name on the chalkboard and left the room when they needed to. There were no passes” (17). Both schools have some rules and regulations around childrens movements, and while one seemed more strict in comparison, they both did have a system of knowing who was out of the room. The question this raised for me was: is it about controlling students, or is it for safety concerns? Is there a balance between both worlds? I also frequently try to connect what I read to what I experience everyday- and is it different in high school? Do elementary students require different needs? Should high-schoolers have passes requiring them to sign in/sign out when they return? My school does, and administration stamps its use from a safety perspective. If someone doesn’t know where you are, or if you are in an undesignated area, they say, that would be problematic. I never thought about it as a way to control behavior or movement of an individual. 

Another question that popped up after reading and seeing the data from different schools was: does the data relate directly to where the educators come from? Does that actually influence how teachers are teaching the content? The curriculum was the same across five schools- so why was it taught so differently? “In the working-class schools, most of the teachers were born in the same city as the school but lived in better sections. Most of them were young and had graduated from the local teachers college” (10). Is it really a caste type system? What was surprising to me was in my reflection, I realized I also did go to a middle/working class high school, and I ended up working in a similar spot. Why am I then trying to teach differently? 

In the personal experience account from one of Finn’s students, an experience they shared was “parents were relentless in their persistence to have their kids receive the best education possible” (23). I have a friend who works at a private boarding school in Massachusetts and we used to work together. She told me the difference between parent communication and expectations was shocking for her too. She had never experienced parents who were so involved. That isn’t to say the parents where I work do not care for their students- I feel this just ties into the argument that education is different based on class. If you are from a working-class family, the parents are most likely working during the day and are focusing on providing for their family. 

Finn’s text states, “She skipped pages dealing with mathematical reasoning and inferences because they were too hard. The teacher in the second working class-school said “these pages are for creativity-they’re extras”... they used a social studies textbook that was described by its publisher as intended for ‘low ability students’” (10). This idea of skipping lessons because it was too hard, or teaching something not on grade level connects to Ken William’s ideas in Ruthless Equity. In William’s chapter on Radioactive Rhetoric, he says “there is a fine line between they shouldn’t have to learn this, and they can’t learn this”. Those two statements breed the same results- low expectations and low work. The idea behind it is that you are letting students get away with less because of societal status. You are allowing them to become victims, and to be treated differently in education. The same is true from those teachers in Finn’s chapter- they skipped because it is too hard. 

Connected to that same idea, and the same book, on page 48, Williams notes: “students lose because educators don’t grow and get better”. In Finn’s chapters, that is taking place. I see the middle-class educators not doing anything different. They are not growing themselves, or trying to improve. They are allowing themselves to be complacent, even if unintentionally. Finn says “no matter what the solutions are, it’s hard-bitten school teachers who will need to implement them” (8). It is the teachers on the ground who have to do the work to see the change. All five schools were given the same curriculum. 

Another connection I had was tied into what I am seeing in my own curriculum working at a public charter school in Providence Rhode Island, serving students who are primarily Hispanic and African American. In chapter 2 on page 15 the text names “creativity and personal development were important goals for students at the affluent professional schools. Teachers wanted students to think for themselves and to make sense of their own experience.” In addition to that, “it didn’t matter whether they got the right answer. What mattered was that they discussed their ideas. When students asked ‘How should I do this?’ teachers answered, ‘you decide’, or ‘What makes sense to you?’ (15).” I do not work in an affluent school or affluent area, however, the curriculum I am teaching and using, encourages those types of actions and behaviors from students. It does not matter what their background is. My curriculum encourages effort and emphasizes the importance of trying, participating, and ultimately being able to have group discussions to share ideas and come together as a larger group. It focuses on the teacher being a facilitator, and students driving their own learning. This also ties into Carol Dweck’s Growth Mindset. Students with growth mindsets will be more likely to try harder work, and overcome challenges, and that can be fostered by the way educators provide feedback. It is important to focus on growth and progress in student learning/work, over praising them for getting all As or amazing grades based more on compliance. If educators are sticking to teaching out of a textbook, and not allowing for independence and creativity, are they helping or hurting? 

Colorblindness is the New Racism 2/6

In this chapter, “Colorblindness is the New Racism”, authors Armstrong and Wildman argue that this idea of colorblindness is not as progressive as it appears. Not acknowledging the racial realities in our world and society is causing more harm than good. In order to have a more equal society, people need to start addressing, discussing, and learning about other’s experiences. 

“Identifying and understanding whiteness should be an essential component of education in the United States” (65). The text then goes on to raise the question “why do many educators fail to address this normative role played by whiteness?” I understand the idea of wanting to end discrimination, and wanting to address white privilege and power, but when in education would this come up? Is it all grades? Elementary? Collegiate level? What would this look like? I know this chapter provides practices and examples to implement these ideas such as the power line chart, the 24 hour experience, and seeing the “me” to foster safe spaces and learn from one another and see both differences and commonalities beyond just race- but overall I struggled with seeing how this is transferable. These seemed to work really well for law classes, and at the collegiate level, but how would this work for 9th grade biology? 

Tied to the argument statement, if people want more racial equity and justice, we need to start talking about things. “Both whites and people of color need to recognize their own and one another’s individual privileges” (71). How can anything progress if not everyone is taking part? This is an everyone thing, not an individual thing. There needs to be what almost feels like an adoption of a collective mindset around this topic and the conversations surrounding race, making it less “taboo”. 

This text continued to highlight for me this idea that it really is all people, not just yourself. “The emphasis on the personal, the “me” underlines the different perspectives that racialization in society causes. Thus, the exercises help students to see that their own racial perspective is not the only one” (76). I alone can not change everything. I need to acknowledge and take into consideration my own perspectives and privilege, who I am, who I am not, and what my story is while simultaneously learning from everyone around me to do the same. 

As I was reading, there were some connections to class discussions, and Alan Johnson’s  Privilege, Power, and Difference. In my past blog post I highlighted this quote from Johnson, "Privilege is always at someone else's expense and always exacts a cost. Everything that's done to receive or maintain it-however passive and unconscious- results in suffering and deprivation for someone" (10). Why this quote came back to me was because on page 63 in “Colorblindness is the New Racism” Armstrong and Wildman state “white privilege is pervasive, structural, and generally invisible operating on both personal and systemic levels”. Both of these texts are highlighting that white privilege for the most part has become invisible and unconscious. It is ingrained in our society as the “norm”. We as a society need to challenge that norm, we need to change it. 

During class we discussed this idea of cultural relativism where things have to be looked at in a unique context, both space and time. What was the culture like? What is the story? Page 69 highlights this, “race has had different meanings over time and its significance continues to fluctuate. Even word usage has evolved and keeps changing. Thus, color insight begins by considering the different contexts that participants in a discussion of race bring to the table”. 

The bottom line for me is when discussing race and equity, there is no right or wrong, we can not be afraid to share our thoughts and feelings in fear of offending other people. We need to talk about the things we know, and especially the things we do not know for us to learn and grow. If there is no conversation, there is no progression and we are back at square one, where we allow color blindness to take over. 

One last connection I made was around the education system in America. “The law prohibits segregation in public schools yet inequality in opportunity and caliber of education remains rampant” (64). Ken Williams covers this idea in chapter one of “Ruthless Equity”  when he discusses academic tracking. Research has shown this practice is ineffective for all students, but especially for those on lower tracks. “This practice inevitably devolves into a system of exclusion along racial lines, within which “so called minority” students, especially students of color, are more likely to end up in lower level tracks… and in a tracking system, access is denied, and the cycle continues” (7). According to the text, when tracking was removed and students were in heterogeneous classes, everyone benefitted, and racial gaps in challenging courses were reduced. Everyone should have the same opportunities at education.

Williams makes a powerful statement “you are up against a system that promotes and supports inequity by design. These are cultural norms that are sustained, nourished, promoted, and supported. Fixing inequality isn’t neuroscience, and not fixing it is a deliberate choice”(8). To me this was a different way to synthesize and summarize Armstrong and Wildman.