Literacy With an Attitude

 "Literacy with an Attitude" by Patrick J. Finn

The reading "Literacy with an Attitude" by Patrick J. Finn was a very interesting read. I really enjoyed chapter two specifically which was about how Anyon studied five different elementary schools ranging from poor neighborhoods to rich neighborhoods. The teachers and students varied drastically between the five schools. It was really eye opening to read about the differences between all give of these schools and how much the teachers' teaching style and class structure can impact students. 

    The first two schools were labeled as the "working class" schools. The students came from families in blue-collar jobs or unemployed. All schools used the same math curriculum books, but the working-class schools skipped a lot of the pages the teachers thought were "too hard" or had "too much mathematical reason". They did not think their students would be able to handle this advanced of math. The work in the classrooms was mostly following procedures correctly rather than being right or wrong. In history, the teachers used a "low ability student" history book because again, they did not think their students were capable enough. These history textbooks were intended for special education classes and the students scored high. The teachers in these schools were very strict with students and often held them for extra time after school to finish their uncomplete work. Even though the teachers were giving their students lower-level work, they were testing with an average IQ score of 100. The author said the dominant theme in these schools was resistance. The students would vandalize the school, cause disruptions in class, and were not enthusiastic about their lessons. They were a bit less resistant to "easy work" than to more challenging work. These students reflected workers in factories, sales floors and offices. It is clear to me that the teachers in these working-class schools did not believe in their students succeeding and were not challenging them to be the best they could be. 

    In the middle-class school, knowledge was more conceptual than the lower-class. Teachers were having students work towards the right answers rather than the structure or routine. Teachers explained to their students why answers were correct to help them better understand. The students were not using much creativity in the classroom as their teachers' focus was more on getting the right answers in the right way. In history lessons, controversial questions were avoided. The teachers in this school varied from strict to easygoing. There was very little excitement in the schoolwork because assignments did not take students' interests into account. The teachers would tell their students that their rewards were good grades that lead to going to a good college and getting a good job in the future. The theme for this school was possibility. They talked more about their goals for the future than in the low-class schools. The students had a lot more anxiety about tests and grades because they were trained to think they need good grades in order to succeed in life. They were more excited about holidays than the low-class schools because it meant they would not have to come to school. They were developing a relationship with the economy, authority and work for white collar jobs, which were not creative qualities. 

    In the high-class school, or "affluent professional school" as they call it in the reading, the teacher came from upper-class backgrounds and were mostly women. The main goals for all students in this school were creativity and personal development. The teachers wanted their students to think for themselves and make sense of their own experiences through discovery. Something that the teachers always said to their students was "what makes sense to you?" which encouraged students to think for themselves and use their creative sides. In social studies lessons, they learned about higher concepts than the middle and lower-class schools. They did a lot more creative projects such as sculptures, plays, stories and murals. They would actually allow their students to pick which project they wanted to do. The teachers believed in flexible seating which allowed them to feel more comfortable in the classroom. The theme for the affluent professional school was individualism/humanitarianism. The students had concern for one another and the school even ended morning announcements each day by saying "do something nice for someone today" which I loved. 

    The last school that Anyon studied was known as the "executive elite school". The students learned more complex topics that were more analytical. The teachers even had their students plan their own lessons and teach their classmates about the topics. Teachers often said to their students, "it's up to you", giving them some freedom to think for themselves. The teachers were all very polite and had a lot of hope for their students' futures. The overall theme of the executive elite school was excellence and being the best. The students had a lot of self-discipline and were taught to be the "masters of the universe". 

Reflection: In my opinion, the affluent professional school seemed like the school I would want to work for. I believe that all students should have access to this level of education no matter their social class because it is the most effective way to teacher students. They deserve to use their creative side in all subjects because that is the best way they will learn. Being able to choose what kinds of projects they do allows them creative freedom. They will be more engaged to the lesson when they can choose what they want to do. This ties back to asset-based learning and having lessons relate back to students' interests. Which school resonated most with you and why? I found this great article discussing the important of creativity in school that I recommend reading.