Literacy with an Attitude by Patrick J. Finn
Argument:
Patrick J. Finn is arguing that in the United States, there are two kinds of education: empowering education, which teaches high literacy proficiency that prepares students for a life of power and authority, and domesticating education, which teaches functional literacy, preparing students to be society's workers, productive and dependable. Of course, like many aspects of our world, socioeconomic status determines which kind of education is available, with a system designed to ensure power remains in the hands of those who have it.
Finn supports this claim in chapter two, referring to a study performed by Jean Anyon, who studied fifth-grade classes in public elementary schools from both wealthy and non-wealthy areas throughout northern New Jersey. In this study, Anyon groups schools by the predominant socioeconomic class of their students. Executive elite refer to families within the top 1 percent, affluent professionals are in the top 10 percent, the middle class is above average but below 10 percent, and the working class has below-average incomes. Through this study, Anyon noted that despite having similar demographics, each majority white, following the same state requirements, utilizing the same arithmetic books and language arts course of study, students walked away with very different educations.
What Finn would refer to as domesticating education were the working and middle-class schools from Anyon’s research. In working-class schools, students learned what to do rather than why, utilizing low-demand tasks that relied on memorization and discipline rather than creative thinking and problem solving, preparing students for wage labor, consisting of mechanical and routine tasks. In the middle-class schools, students held the belief that hard work would pay off, with a focus on textbook learning, finding information, understanding it, and using it to get the right answer, skills often valued by middle-class professions.
In comparison, Finn’s empowering education would comprise Anyon’s, affluent professionals, and executive elite schools. In affluent professional schools, students learned through discovery and experience, focusing on creative ideas rather than learning the right answer, preparing students for careers that demand creative thinking and inventiveness. In executive elite schools, learning is rigorous and challenging, focusing on logic, reason, problem solving, analytics, and self-discipline, preparing students for elite jobs that expect the highest quality performances.
Comment:
Having been in a middle-class public education my whole life, my experience aligns closely with Anyon's description. I remember getting so frustrated by the constant praise I would receive from teachers for my creativity, as I struggled to even keep up in school. I felt it was a skill without value, like they had nothing else worthwhile to say. We were never graded on our creativity, so what good is this “skill” if it did nothing to help my performance? I wonder how differently my experience could have been had I gone to a school centered around creative thinking.
For ways to inspire creative thinking in the classroom:
https://drexel.edu/soe/resources/teacher-resources/inspire-creativity-in-the-classroom/
Hi Faith, I absolutely relate to your experience and frustration when it came to creativity. I remember feeling really lost when I was behind and looking back I wish there was more creativity encouraged in schools. It felt like it was constantly shut down and every answer and lesson was so black and white. It felt that the skill was useless because it was never really valued.
ReplyDeleteHi Faith. Your analysis highlights the profound interplay between education and social class in defining opportunities. Clearly, Karl Marx's class struggle would also be a valuable framework for analyzing education through the lens of inequality. Finn's distinction between "emancipatory" and "domesticating" education reveals how school systems, far from equalizing opportunities, often reinforce existing power structures. Jean Anyon's research makes this divide stark, demonstrating that even when curricula are identical, teaching methods and expectations of students vary considerably depending on their social background. It is troubling to observe that children in schools in working-class neighborhoods are systematically prepared for submission rather than leadership, while students from affluent backgrounds are trained in critical thinking and the exercise of authority. Finn's argument invites us to ask ourselves: does our education system truly serve democracy, or does it deliberately perpetuate inequalities?
ReplyDeleteHi Faith. I had similar experiences as well. I remember being so frustrated with there being such concrete answers. I also experienced this through my kids. I remember when my oldest was in school and the math teacher would show one way to solve the problems. She did not care if another way was easier. You could only use one method. It made things so difficult and frustrating.
ReplyDeleteYour comment, "socioeconomic status determines which kind of education is available, with a system designed to ensure power remains in the hands of those who have it" really stood out to me and it's scary to think that depending on what "social" school you attend will predetermine your working future. Its important that we foster creativity and independent thinking with all student, not just those in affluent professional school setting
ReplyDeleteHi Faith!
ReplyDeleteI really like your blog this week! I agree with what you said about working class students being showed what to do but not why they were doing it. They never took the time to explain these things to them, they just wanted to make sure it was being done- and that it was correct. Maybe, if they taught them the why- it would be more sucessful and students would find that more attention-grabbing!