While I was engaged in the reading of Literacy with an Attitude: Educating Working
Class Children in Their Own Self-Interest, by Patrick J. Finn, I found myself resonating with components of chapters 2, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13 and 14. It was here that a central literacy theme became more than apparent; namely, that of discourse.
Our primary discourse is that which we learn, informally, at home. In this light, oral communication is of significant value and importance. As educators, we acknowledge the significance behind the first five years of a child’s life, and yet there are dramatic changes that take place in the lives of our children, both before and when they go to school.
Why is it, in some cases, that discourse is not encouraged? Why is it, in some cases, that discourse is not seen as an important and integral factor with respect to literacy?
One means of attempting to answer these important questions pertains to the study as
conducted by Jean Anyon, introduced in chapter 2. Jean Anyon conducted a study that
involved five public elementary schools in New Jersey. Some schools were situated in rich neighborhoods; others were located in not-so-rich neighborhoods. This made for an excellent cross-reference study. Her focus was on that of the Grade 5 classroom. With regards to the schools studied, there were noted similarities: most students were white; all schools were located in northern New Jersey, thereby adhering to the same state requirements; all schools used the same Math books; all schools were subject to the same Language Arts program(s). That is where similarities end, given the startling differences that were discovered (refer to table that follows).
WORKING CLASS
Knowledge presented as fragmented facts.
Little decision making or choice.
Teachers rarely explained work.
Very little discourse encouraged.
Every effort made to control the student.
Students demonstrate mechanical and routine behaviors.
Theme: resistence
MIDDLE CLASS
Job of teacher is to impart knowledge (socially approved sources).
Getting the answer right was the focus.
Not rewarded for critical analysis.
Creativity is rare.
Decisions made based on known rules.
Knowledge viewed as valuable possession
(to be traded for good grades, credentials)
Theme: possibility
AFFLUENT PROFESSIONAL
Independent thinking and discovery are encouraged.
Creativity and personal development are seen as being important.
School knowledge presented as relevant to life’s problems.
Constant negotiation (means of control).
Direct orders rarely given.
Social strife acknowledged and discussed.
Current events discussed.
Theme: individualism (major)
Theme: humanitarianism (minor)
EXCLUSIVE ELITE
Knowledge is academic, intellectual and rigorous.
Reasoning, problem solving, rationality, and being able to analyze are important.
Insistence upon self-discipline.
Theme: excellence
As I was attempting to make personal connections, within this compare and contrast
model, I was remembering childhood background experiences. Despite my having grown up as a member of the working class poor, my educational experiences revolved around the middle class model as imparted here (courtesy of Jean Anyon). I strived to receive good grades (mostly through rote memorization and regurgitation), knowing, in the end, that going off to University (acquisition of necessary credentials) would enable me to break free of the working class system.
A second attempt at trying to answer these discourse questions is reflected in chapter 7. It is here that Finn writes about Basil Bernstein, an English Sociologist who studied two class systems in Britain; namely, the working class and the middle class. Bernstein talked about the language habits of both class systems, comparing each to success in school. Given that language habits are hinged upon school success, “savage inequalities” result. The findings of Bernstein, as indicated below, also seems to further substantiate the findings of Jean Anyon.
BRITISH WORKING CLASS
• implicit language (context dependent)
• conformity expected
• rigid sex roles
• opinions dictated by group consensus
• authoritarian home/community
• society of intimates that relies on shared
knowledge and information
• powerlessness (dominant theme)
BRITISH MIDDLE CLASS
• explicit language (context independent)
• collaborative home/community
• democratic decisions
• willing to discuss reasons for rules and decisions if challenged (continuous need for explicit language)
• society of strangers (do not rely on shared knowledge and information)
Given that school language is explicit in nature, it is clear that members of the working class are at a distinct disadvantage from day one. As this particular group of children progresses through school, their reading scores appear to fall farther and farther below that of their peer group. It then is presumed, unfortunately, that because they are not making the gains that they should be making, there are somehow lacking in the basics.
How have we tended to respond in the past? Merely by bombarding them with more and
more phonics. Where one’s primary discourse is inconsistent with that of the school
(environment as well as text books), how can these children succeed? Are these the
students that we like to categorize as the “core” special education students? As a teacher in this specialized field, it appears that I must rethink my previous understandings as to what these students actually need.
A third attempt at trying to answer these discourse questions is reflected in chapters 8 and 9. This is where we learn about scaffolding (conversation leading from behind) and make additional comparisons between Roadvillers and Maintowners.
ROADVILLERS (WORKING CLASS)
Scaffolding involves the parents staying on a topic long after the child has gone on to something else. Parents are conscious of the importance associated with “pay attention ... listen ... behave”; hence, this is deemed as the primary purpose.
• exposure to books (the alphabet, simple shapes, basic colors, name pictures and parts of pictures)
• parents ask questions (expect answers they taught)
• no special bedtime routines
• stories have morals or lessons
• rarely provide emotional or personal commentary in recounting real events or book stories
• do not understand hypothetical questions
• primary discourse is in conflict with school discourse
• do not see the relevance of school work to their own lives
• society of intimates (powerlessness)
• conformity is expected
• parents are authoritarian
• implicit language (context dependent)
MAINTOWNERS (MIDDLE CLASS
Scaffolding involves asking questions, rephrasing or stating what has been said, adding new information to extend/support current topic of conversation (exaggerate and repeat new words). Purpose is to keep the conversation going.
• exposure to books (natural flow of language that parents engage in with their children)
• reading lessons in school very similar to bedtime routines at home
• primary discourse is similar to and congenial with school discourse
• constant contact with strangers (more at ease with strangers) as in associations and friendships
• society of strangers (do not rely on shared knowledge and information)
• sense they are not without power
• parents are democratic (collaboration encouraged re decision making)
• willing to discuss reasons for rules and decisions if challenged (continuous need for explicit language)
We are now starting to piece together why such discourse discrepancies exist. It is
becoming clearer that every discourse also involves “values, attitudes, behaviors, beliefs, ways of learning, and ways of expressing what we know, which persons must accept and conform to in order to operate within the discourse” (Literacy with an Attitude: Educating Working Class Children in Their Own Self-Interest, page 108). It is also clear that where discourse is consistent with that of school discourse, students cannot fail.
How, then, can we make the primary discourse of predominantly working class children more consistent with that of school discourse?
In reading from chapter 11, I was completely captivated by the degree of powerful
literacy that was prevalent as a result of the inception of The Corresponding Societies, in England, of 1792. Membership was not limited. Unless one were incapacitated as a result of crime activity, no one was excluded. This, then, encouraged “people from different walks of life to come together in a society of strangers, to question authority and exercise power. Their whole point was for members to reflect on society and their place in it, to learn what others were thinking, to discuss it, evaluate it, come to conclusions, formulate new ideas and opinions, and exchange those conclusions, opinions and ideas with others in the form of correspondence” (Literacy with an Attitude: Educating Working Class Children in Their Own Self-Interest, page 133).
Every time I reread this particular paragraph, I just want to get up and shout it out to the powers that be. There is no better descriptor of powerful literacy than this! How is it, then, that we cen begin to work towards advancing our students (and ourselves) to this very level?
It is shocking to note that the reaction, on behalf of the British government, was one of panic and repression. To think that one could be tried for treason during this historical time frame is no different from one having been deemed a heretic during the Inquisition.
Both have served to silence open-minded, literate and hence, powerful individuals, so that one could maintain control of the so-called masses.
The Corresponding Societies represented education for liberation. They were
dismantled, never to be seen in over two centuries, until Paulo Freire, a professor at the University of Reclife (northeast Brazil), started an adult literacy program “for the city’s teeming, illiterate poor” (Literacy with an Attitude: Educating Working Class Children in Their Own Self-Interest, page 1). It was Friere who observed that education is never neutral. To acknowledge that we are still failing so many children in the 21st century, in this age of technological advancement that relies on literacy, is completely and utterly deplorable. This is a fact that needs to be acknowledged and addressed, on behalf of all.
How can one sum up what needs to be done to correct the discourse problem that clearly exists? It appears that the working class, predominantly, needs the following:
• to be introduced into a school community whereby explicit language makes sense
• to be introduced into a school community whereby explicit language is necessary
• to be part of a community where authority is viewed as being a collaboration effort
• to see the relevance between the school community and their personal lives
In a conscious working effort towards alleviating the problem, what can one do? This is where chapters 13 and 14 began to made sense to me. I was deeply encouraged by the work of Paulo Friere. Here was an individual who was willing to undertake a most radical and dangerous role, in a “country where a huge divide separated a small number of the very rich and a vast number of the very poor” where he asked his students “what they might do to secure justice and suggested that literacy would make them far better able to engage in the struggle they would certainly face if they tried to get a better deal” (Literacy with an Attitude: Educating Working Class Children in Their Own Self-Interest, page 2).
In addition, I found it very interesting to read that the poor in Brazil are “so submerged in their daily lives that they have little or no awareness of the possibility for change, much less what they might do to bring about change. They view their condition as natural, the will of God, determined by fate” Literacy with an Attitude: Educating Working Class Children in Their Own Self-Interest, page 157). Might this be akin to what the working class feel? Might this be akin to what the Roadvillers feel?
The Frierean Culture Circles recipients are introduced to many concepts along the way, a chief one being that ... the literate are powerful ... you’re not ... what are you going to do about it? This instantly brings to mind a personal reflection regarding the current state of educational affairs ... the working class are not literate ... the working class are not powerful ... what am I (as an educator) going to do about it?
As per chapter 14, I have appreciated what I have read about Robert Peterson, a follower of the Frierean tradition. I believe that we need more educators who think along these lines, for they are the ones who serve to help us challenge ourselves so that we can “involve students in probing the social factors that make and limit who they are and ... help them reflect on what they could be” (Literacy with an Attitude: Educating Working Class Children in Their Own Self Interest, page 180). Although I know naught how to go about making this type of teaching my own current reality, it is my wish to become more like Robert Peterson, William Bigelow and Linda Christenson, all of whom emphasize Freirean dialogue and “conscientization”. In this light, I feel that Finn has merely served to whet my appetite.
I am not overly bothered by these feelings of uncertainty and doubt, especially as
MacGinitie has linked them with “good” teachers, for it is a “good” teacher that will readily admit, accept and acknowledge that they will always have much to learn.
One way in which genuine and dynamic dialogue can take place is within the interactive teaching model (also referred to as the experiential model). This model is culturally fair in that all students are actively involved in expressing and sharing personal experiences. There is much student-student talk, guided and facilitated by the teacher, whereby all persons are validated and empowered. This takes me back to the classroom of Robert Peterson, a follower of the Freirean tradition, who created a positive atmosphere “through activities that stressed self-affirmation, mutual respect, communication, group decision making, and cooperation” which, to my mind, serves to develop higher level cognitive thinking (explorer of meaning, more critical thinker, more creative thinker, increased ability to interpret and analyze facts) and intrinsic motivation. Unfortunately, within this province, we see few of this type of classroom.
How do we go about embracing this new frontier? We know that language (discourse)
can be used as a means of changing one’s reality. Manning says that classrooms need to be “places where kids get to answer their own questions”. How does this manifest if classroom discourse is not encouraged? In this light, there exists much irony between the envisaged curriculum (as established and mandated by the Department of Education, deemed socially approved and acceptable sources) and the real curriculum.
The envisaged curricula is one that has been devised by individuals who have little or no contact with the students themselves, and yet the teacher is mandated to teach to specific programs. In addition, these days the teacher is mandated to teach to both CRTs and public exams.
Learning is not a matter of accumulating information and adding to one’s knowledge
base, as the envisaged curriculum appears to have been created for. One must make
sense of the experiences in one’s life for real learning to occur. In this instance, I quite agree with Manning when he states that now is the time to “reclaim the classroom”.
Clearly, “... nothing short of dialogue, conscientization, and explicitly teaching school discourse and powerful literacy will give all students a chance at an empowering, liberating education” (Literacy with an Attitude: Educating Working Class Children in Their Own Self Interest, page 190).
We have our answer to what needs to be done in order to validate every student with
regards to both written and oral discourse. It is up to us to begin applying what we know and feel to be true, whilst abandoning our quest for perfection and certainty.
