Class Attitudes and Teaching Philosophy

In Literacy with an Attitude’s first chapter, Patrick J. Finn displays the different conclusions reached after extensive research within schools from a variety of economic backgrounds.  Teachers from working class backgrounds within working class communities, he argues, teach differently than teachers with upper class backgrounds who teach in upper class communities.  Finn says that each division of class (working class, middle class, upper-middle class, upper class) has different goals and outcomes in their teaching strategies.  These practices and outcomes directly reflect the class of the students and the suspected job opportunities these children will eventually be given.  For example, lower class children are taught tedious activities in a tedious fashion, the prediction being that these students will have jobs that require these type of skills, like on a factory line, for example.  There is no need for creative thinking involved in these tasks.  “While the same arithmetic book was used in all five schools, the teacher in one working-class school commented that she skipped pages dealing with mathematical reasoning and inference because they were too hard.  The teacher in the second working-class school said, ‘These pages are for creativity – they’re extras.’  She often skipped them as well” (10).  

The upper-middle class, the school of children whose parents were from the upper 10 percent of income earners in the country and the school of children whose parents were from the upper 1 percent of income earners in the country, in the researched mentioned, tended to use these creative assignments almost exclusively.  These assignments better prepared the students for the jobs they were expected to obtain after graduating, jobs that would require critical analyst, ultimately what creative assignments would teach.

Finn argues that each school was preparing the students to stay in the same economic class and job level as their parents, based on the learning they were receiving at their schools. 

This part of the article resonated for me because my best friend in elementary school transferred from our predominantly middle class/working class public school to an upper-middle class private school (Moses Brown) after second grade.  The move was curious among our elementary school, since the Moses Brown was only down the street in Providence.  What made his school better?

As the article pointed out, the teaching techniques were much more driven towards careers in the upper-middle class (10 percent earners) compared to the middle class/working class public school.  I recall asking him about the differences, when we were in 5^th grade, and he said he did many more projects at his new school.  There seemed to be less boring busy work and more hands-on activities being promoted.

At the time, I remember being intimidated by the idea of doing projects all the time.  I always thought projects were way more difficult than the typical assignments I was given.  I was used t working with definite expectations and grades. 

After reading the article, I asked myself: could I have survived at Moses Brown?  I think I could’ve, but there would’ve been growing pains.  If I were taught how to learn in that mode early enough, chances are I would’ve figured it out. 

I considered this same process when thinking about my own teaching.  I currently teach at a middle-class high school with less working class students than where I grew up.  The leap in teaching was not difficult – since I was in honors level classes growing up, I was familiar with the techniques expected with middle class groups of kids.  

I had a little more trouble with classes with more working class children and I had to experiment a little in order to figure out how to break through to them.  I had to adapt.

I currently don't use as many teaching techniques mentioned in the article that are geared towards upper-middle class teaching/upper class teaching and that is a major reason why I'm going to graduate school.  I am going to adapt to more teaching techniques that are more geared towards upper-middle class/upper class.  Since I’m not used to them, I will probably have a growing pains period.  However, as I go, I’m sure I’ll be able to find a way to use them in my classroom.  The idea of it, indeed, is intimidating, but teaching is an evolving process.  Nothing is permanent, something satisfying I get out of teaching. 

I’ve wanted to discuss the television show “The Wire” in class for a while and I thought this reading had the strongest link to the show. 

For those of you who aren’t familiar with the show, each season of “The Wire” focuses on a different dying institution in the city of Baltimore.  Season 1 focuses on the failures of the police trying to stop drugs and the drugs lords they chase, Season 2 on the fall of the dockworkers, Season 3 on politics, Season 4 on the school system, and Season 5 on journalism.  What’s cool about the show is that each season layers on the one before and shows how all these institutions are linked together.  “The Wire” taught me more about how the real world worked, for better and for worse, than any piece of art (TV, movies, books, etc) than anything I can think of and I recommend it to everyone.

The fourth season focuses on a group of eighth graders and is by far the most heart-breaking season of television I’ve ever encountered.  The scene that I thought resonated with this reading, and others we’ve had in class, is summarized here:

Summary:  Ex-cop turned public school teacher Howard "Bunny" Colvin has taken it on himself to help reach the badly underprivileged children who have been deemed essentially unteachable by their West Baltimore junior high school. After his students do well on a project, Colvin decides to take them out to dinner at an upscale restaurant. Initially the students are excited and pleased--but over the course of the meal they become increasingly uncomfortable and discouraged. This is a good way to open a discussion of cultural capital in the context of class inequality, especially with an eye toward intersections of race and gender. Useful questions to ask: Why are Bunny's students so uncomfortable? What assumptions do they bring to their situation about what is expected of them? What if the situation were reversed and the people dining at the restaurant were on the streets of West Baltimore? The differences in the characters’ behavior at the beginning and the end of the clip are especially striking—why the change, and what does it say about what has happened in the scene?

The project mentioned in the summary is what links to this week’s reading.  The lower-income students are challenged to build a replica model of the Eiffel tower without directions.  They are able to use their life experiences to figure it out and the winners are then given the prize of going out for a fancy dinner.  They seemed surprised by the assignment and there are a few interesting observations made.  The winning team is then taken out for a fancy dinner, which is one of the more memorable scenes in the show’s history.  It makes you wonder how the students would've turned out if they were given challenging projects like this one, rather than being taught in the more structured way that they constantly railed against.  

The restaurant scene reminds me of the cultural codes that students with little power must be taught in order to gain any power themselves.  Their teacher, Bunny Colvin, tries to teach them how to be more socialized citizens.  The students react with awkwardness and aggressiveness   

Warning, these videos have strong language:

The principal hears about the restaurant field trip and is not too pleased.  Here is her reaction and Colvin's defense of the situation.  He argues that the kids are learning real-world skills in the classroom, just not the ones the teachers and administration would like them to learn: