It's not math--it's class warfare: Viva la Revolucion!

Coming from a working class family, I really enjoyed Finn's analysis of working class education. Essentially he says that there at two kinds of education. The first is "empowering education, which leads to powerful literacy, the kind of literacy that leads to positions of power and authority" (ix). While the second is "domesticating education, which leads to functional literacy, literacy that makes a person productive and dependable, but not [and this is important] troublesome" (ix-x). Guess which kind of education Finn argues that we are providing working class kids?

Finn cites a study done by Jean Anyon which describes the working class school she observed as restrictive and procedural. Anyon describes how "Work [at this working class school] was following steps in a procedure. There was little decision making or choice" (10). Teachers had low expectations for their students--providing all students with low level readers (regardless of ability), asking them to copy notes about the directions of an experiment but not allowing them to preform it, etc. Teachers were also heard disparaging their students as "lazy," "dumb," and incapable of learning. Not surprisingly, these students developed an antagonistic relationship to school and their teachers.

Now despite this appalling example, I don't think Finn is saying that everyone who teaches working class kids is a horrible shrew who hates children. But he is saying that it is difficult to get working class kids to buy into school as we know it. Thinking of my School Within a School students, many of whom are working class, I'd have to say Finn's assessment is dead on. For whatever reason, my students have developed an antagonistic relationship towards school. Many of them have voiced their opinion that "school is a waste of time." They do not see the value in what we've been trying to teach them and therefore seek ways to escape our influence--defiance, apathy, etc. All of this reminds me of Delpit's ideas of the "culture of power." These kids come from families outside of the middle-class "culture of power." These students don't see the inherent value in learning to think critically because the working class has been trained from the very first days of kindergarten to follow rules and procedure. Now that doesn't mean they are mindless robots. They may follow rules to a point but they've been taught that the system is there to keep them in check. Thus they rebel against the system often in ways that are self-sabotaging--being disruptive/defiant, dropping out, etc. Finn discusses this when he concludes that working class children in Anyon's school "were learning to follow directions and do mechanical, low-paying work, but at the same time they were learning to resist authority in ways sanctioned by their community" (28).

Finn's solution to all of this is, well, revolution. But a empowering revolution, not some bloody coup that is more about punishing the other side than generating change. Referencing the days in which the gentry forbade the lower classes from reading the Bible for fear it would give them"ideas," Finn advocates for "dangerous" literacy. He cites Paulo Freire's work in Brazil as the basis for his own ideas about how to get working class students to buy into education. First Finn claims you have to make them want the knowledge that you, the teacher, has. This is done by connecting whatever you are trying to teach them to their own lives. Finn advocates a discussion based approach to this problem. By dialoging with our students, allowing students to express their thoughts and opinions and giving serious consideration to what they have to say, we send the message that their knowledge is valuable. This is the first step in getting them to buy into their own education--convincing them that they have something to bring to the table. School can be a place where knowledge is shared not just forced feed.

On that note, I'd like to conclude with Herman Blume's "Take dead aim on the rich boys" speech from Rushmore.

"Take dead aim on the rich boys."

"Nigga or Niggah"

I was thinking of the issue that Ray brought up in class in reference to Jenn's Chris Rock video--that there are certain things (words, sentiments, etc.) that are considered acceptable for those outside of the culture of power to say that are certainly not acceptable for those within the culture to repeat.

This clip is from the T.V. show The Boondocks (based on the comic strip by Aaron McGruder). If you haven't ever seen or read any of McGruder's stuff, I'd highly recommend you check it out. He has some interesting things to say about race and power. The following clip entitled "Nigga or Niggah" juxtaposes real life news footage regarding an incidence between a white teacher and his black student involving the "N" word with clips from the show.

Blog for Thought

My friend Anna posted an article (from the blog Racialicious) about the racial breakdown of the 2011 Emmy nominees and winners. I thought it was appropriate given the nature of our class and the topics we discuss.

Check it out the stats complied by blog contributor, Arturo R. Garcia:

Number of Awards Handed Out Sunday Night: 25

Number of POC Winners: 0

Number of Individual Acting Nominees: 81

Number of POC Nominees: 6*
* Idris Elba (Luther, The Big C) scored two nominations

Number of Writing Nominees Outside Best Variety, Music or Comedy Series Category: 30

Number of POC Nominees: 1

Number Of Individual Writers in Best Variety, Music or Comedy Series Writing Category Nominees: 97

Number of Individual POC Writers In That Category: 6

"Lesbian Seagull"--The Song of the White Educator

I don't disagree with the ideas about the "culture of power" found in Lisa Delpit's "The Silenced Dialogue" nor do I disagree with her point that those who have grown up outside the dominate culture should be explicitly taught the rules of said culture in order to access more freely the power inherent in that culture. In fact, I think the idea that some children come to school instilled with the "accoutrements" needed to succeed in a certain culture while others (because of their racial or socioeconomic background) do not, is something that every educator should give serious consideration to.

I do however take great exception to Delpit's characterization of black and white educators. Her depiction of white educators verges on the cartoonish. Delpit's insinuation that all black educators are disciplinarian task masters who demand their students behave and learn while all white educators are liberals whose sole purpose in the classroom is to safeguard kids against icky rules and explicit instruction is just silly. I laughed aloud when I read the following example of a"typical" statement"made with the best of intentions by middle-class liberal educators" (28) :

It's really a shame but she (that black teacher upstairs) seems to be so authoritarian, so focused on skills and so teacher directed. Those poor kids never seem to be allowed to really express their creativity. (And she even yells at them.) (33).

She yells at them?! The horror! After reading this, I immediately thought of Mr. Van Driessen from Beavis and Butthead. Below is a clip from the movie Beavis and Butthead Do America in which Mr. Van Driessen is trying to help students cope with their feelings by singing them an absurd song called "Lesbian Seagull":



I realize that the clip is a bit hyperbolic but so are Delpit's examples. When she reports that several black teachers she'd spoken with had concluded that "many of the 'progressive' educational strategies imposed by liberals upon black and poor children could only be based on a desire to ensure that liberals' children get sole access to the dwindling pool of American jobs," (29) Delpit does not even attempt to temper such an emotional response with any rational academic insight. Instead she goes on about liberals "good intentions" masking their true "unconscious motives" (29). Unconscious motives? Is Delpit moonlighting as a mind reader? This really counts as research?

And the problem with such histrionics, is that they overshadow Delpit's main argument--that educators should not assume that all students come to their classrooms with the skills (both academic and social) needed to excel. That it is our job to explicitly inform students about what it is they need to know in order to be successful in the world at large and how they can learn it. This is an excellent point. But it gets lost in Delpit's attempts to paint the liberal (aka white) educator as the big dog in the small room who keeps knocking things over with its wagging tail.

Allan Johnson's Privilege, Power, and Difference

While Allan Johnson’s Privilege, Power, and Difference is focused mainly on our interactions with one another in the world at large, I was struck by how much of what he discusses can be applied to the classroom and our relationships with students. In particular, Johnson’s section on impressions and assumptions really connected with me. I was reminded of Malcolm Gladwell’s book Blink when reading Johnson’s observation of how “we routinely form quick impressions of race, gender, age, or sexual orientation” (20). While Gladwell mainly focuses on the usefulness of split second determination, Johnson focuses on the danger of such decision making when applied to our understanding of others. Johnson argues that we use these impressions “in order to see the world as an organized and predictable place” (20). Yet people are far too complex to be predictable and thus our assumptions can quickly get us into trouble, particularly in the classroom.

When reading of Johnson’s lunch with his African American friend/colleague, I was thinking of how easy it is to avoid ever thinking of how the life experience of another differs from your own. If we fail to make the conscious decision to think about the ways that race, gender, sexuality, and class can shape/define the existence of others, it is easy for us to assume that everyone’s life experiences are just like our own. Ultimately this way of thinking allows us to more easily (and often times erroneously) judge others.

I see this happen in school all the time when we as teachers get frustrated with our students. We sometimes assume that our students’ experiences are similar to that of our own. Due to confidentiality laws, teachers are often left in the dark about a student’s background. So unless a student feels comfortable enough to share some of her experiences with us, we must rely on own impressions of that student to form a basis for our understanding. And this is where things can get tricky. It’s easy to assume that the popular athlete who sits in the second row of your honors English class is just being lazy when he doesn’t turn in his essay on time, that he values sports over academics. But dig a little deeper and you may find that this easy-going, young man has an abusive alcoholic for a father and spent the time when he would otherwise have been writing about The Scarlet Letter trying to defuse an escalating fight between his parents. Or on the flip side, he really may have just blown off the paper. The point is, sometimes we don’t know everything we think we do. It is important to remind ourselves of this not only when dealing with issues of race, gender, sexuality, and class but in all other aspects of our lives as well. People don’t fit into neat little categories, as much as we’d sometimes like them to.

Another subject in Johnson’s article that I’ve been thinking about is his assertion that men, heterosexuals, whites, etc. cannot be oppressed because “a group can only be oppressed if there exists another group that has the power to oppress them” (40). This may be true in the macrocosm that is American society but our lives are made up of smaller microcosms as well complete with their own unique set of cultural expectations and power dynamics. For instance, a male friend of mine is a fifth grade teacher at an elementary school in Mansfield, MA. He is one of only 7 male staff members out of a faculty of 103. Fully licensed in both elementary education and physical education, Aaron has for years now been trying to make the transition from the classroom into physical education. He has dutifully applied for any physical education positions that have opened up in his district only to be told that as one of the only male teachers at his school he is too valuable to replace. So while it is certainly true that the moment that Aaron leaves work, he resumes the power and privilege afforded him as a white, middle-class, male by American society, at work he is at the mercy of a microcosm that values his gender first, his aspirations/qualifications second.

Introductions

Greetings! My name is Kelly Reed and I am an English teacher at Attleboro High School. Although this is my tenth year teaching at AHS, I am starting my first year in the high school's new School Within a School program. This program is aimed at helping at risk ninth graders (those students identified in middle school as having severe attendance, discipline, and/or academic problems) make a successful transition into high school. Our goal is to help all of the forty two students in the program graduate high school in four years. While it is sure to be demanding, I am look forward to the challenge.

On a more personal note, I spend most of my time outside of the classroom attempting to keep my 14 month old son, Malcolm, from plummeting down the stairs, putting foreign objects up his nose, and eating everything that is not tethered down. When Malcolm is safely asleep, I enjoy having some adult non-school related conversation with my husband (who coincidentally is also a teacher at AHS), reading a good zombie story or two, and watching nerdy shows like The Universe (Did you know there are giant alcohol clouds in space?) and MonsterQuest (I believe in you, Nessie!).