Reflection:
Finn's "Literacy with an Attitude" provided an insightful look into how schools in communities of varying wealth teach their students and how students are treated in schools. Despite knowing that it varied strongly prior to reading this article, based on what we have learned in class up to this point, I was still surprised to see just how everything varied. In the working-class, students were taught to follow directions which reflected the low-paying work they were expected to do in society, while middle-class students were learning to follow orders and do the mental work that keeps society running, and upper-class students were learning to create, and find rewards in work, and how to negotiate from a powerful position with those in power. Basically, these school systems were teaching students that they were only as smart as their parents' net income.
Most of the time, when setting up for an experiment, we would get the prompt of what we were trying to test. Each of us would write our own hypothesis on what we thought the outcome would be. Then we would watch the teacher do the experiment, and as a class, we would answer questions related to the experiment. Then we would go home and write a report on our findings. I don't remember a single experiment that we did in learning this way, but I do remember when my favorite eighth grade science teacher brought in dry ice and left one at each group to play with (explicitly telling us why we can't touch it) as we learned about solids, liquids, and gasses. This was a fun experiment because we were engaged with the materials and we were allowed to have fun with the experiment.
This greatly varied to the Gizmos that we would do from time to time. These were like experiments done on the computer in a simulation. Looking back, I can see how these are helpful to learning about certain things in science, but I always hated them. They weren't that engaging because you could only click on the buttons that the program allowed, and it always felt more like busy work.
Although the Gizmo was a good example of certain aspects of science, we were never given enough time to finish the assignment, and it didn't show us anything new. I imagine this is how students in the working-class schools felt about all of their assignments. They were being told what they could learn and what they were capable of learning, much like the Gizmo. If I wanted to click a certain button, I wasn't allowed to unless other requirement had been met first. The program should have allowed me to click what I wanted so I could see the consequences of that action.
Overall, I thought this reading was really insightful into how schools treat their students based on familial wealth. Reading about the working-class teachers talk about their students in derogatory ways before ever giving them a chance to improve their skills really bothered me. Has anyone seen an example of this in their schools?
Hi Amara! This was such an insightful connection to Finn’s "Literacy with an Attitude!" Your comparison between the "working-class" teaching style focused on following rigid steps and your experience with Gizmos is a perfect example of how "hidden curricula" function.
ReplyDeleteIt’s frustrating to realize that digital simulations, which should theoretically open up more possibilities, can sometimes be just as restrictive as a copied lab report if they don’t allow for trial, error, and genuine inquiry. I especially loved your point about the dry ice experiment in eighth grade; it highlights how engagement and autonomy are often what make science "stick," rather than just observing a result from a distance. I remember my 8th grade science power skills class all too well; engagement because I was perceived as a "problem" was not helpful that year when it came to learning and retaining information, no less.
To answer your question at the end: yes, I think many of us have seen those "derogatory" assumptions in action, where students are managed rather than mentored based on perceived potential. It reminds me of another video we had watched in Psych Perspectives in Learning about an autistic girl who was perceived as a "problem" rather than being understood. It’s a powerful reminder that as we move forward, we should advocate for classrooms that treat every student like an "upper-class" learner, or better known as someone capable of creating, negotiating, and finding joy in their work.
Hi Amara- I really enjoyed your blog and your questions. I had a really similar reaction reading Literacy with an Attitude—especially that idea that schools aren’t just teaching content, they’re kind of shaping what students believe they’re capable of. Your example with science really brought that to life. The difference between copying procedures vs. actually getting to explore (like with the dry ice) is huge, and it makes sense why one stuck with you and the other didn’t.
ReplyDeleteI’ve definitely seen versions of what Finn describes, though maybe not as overt. It shows up more subtly—like lower expectations for certain groups of students, or more controlled, step-by-step tasks instead of open-ended ones. Even the way some teachers talk about students in staff spaces can hint at those assumptions. It’s uncomfortable to notice, but I think naming it (like you did here) is an important first step.
Hey Amara!
ReplyDeleteGreat post!!!
To answer your question: "Reading about the working-class teachers talk about their students in derogatory ways before ever giving them a chance to improve their skills really bothered me. Has anyone seen an example of this in their schools?" In my placement one of the students was having a real difficult time on my first day. I told the teacher I would gladly go and spend time with him. The aid said "Don't bother he's a lot." This was eye opening that they would say that to someone that is there to help and was in the room for no more than twenty min. I can only imagine what else is said in schools.
Hi Amara! Thanks for sharing. I really enjoyed your post this week. I had similar experiences to you with science when I moved from my school in WA to OK. Both were public schools, and due to how school funding was allocated in each state I had wildly different experiences between the schools. Your experience with the dry ice was my everyday in my low-income school in WA (60% of us qualified for free/reduced meals). My schools in Oklahoma didn't use virtual lab tools, we just had to watch the teacher do it (I think the software was out of budget?) What I found strange about my situation is that the school I went to in OK was more affluent (~30% of us had free/reduced lunch), yet the quality of our education was significantly lower. Wondering if other folks have similar experiences?
ReplyDeleteHi Amara,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed your post this week and appreciate the examples you provided from your own experiences. Your example with the dry ice experiment is powerful because it shows what happens when that structure shifts. Suddenly, you were doing science instead of just observing it. You were allowed to interact, question, and even play within boundaries. That moment highlights how engagement and deeper understanding often come from giving students working hands on. I think it is so important that we see more of this in schools, as it is so much more effective and beneficial to students.