Literacy with an Attitude

In Patrick J. Finn’s 1999 work Literacy with an Attitude: Educating Working Class Children in Their Own Self-interest, Finn explains in chapter 2 how socioeconomic status impacts the quality of education – and it’s not because lower income students have lower capacities to achieve. Underpinning Finn’s assertion is a summary of Jean Anyon’s groundbreaking and remarkably enduring study in which fifth grade classrooms (of mostly white northern New Jersey students) were categorized based on family income. Anyon observed that teachers were essentially teaching to meet prejudiced expectations of students’ abilities and the skills they’d need for future employment.

When reading the comparisons of the varying degrees to which students’ conceptual and creative skills were nurtured across the spectrum of classrooms designated as working class, middle class, affluent professional, and executive elite, I strongly identified with having mainly a working class education, though my inclusion in my suburban public school’s “gifted program” from fourth through sixth grade offered a taste of an affluent professional education. In the gifted program, fifteen students per grade would leave their regular classrooms for one period each day to delve into months-long explorations of topics outside the standard curriculum, such as ocean ecosystems, Greek myths, Mayan culture, and computer literacy. Lessons and assignments incorporated multimedia sources, artistic creations, and group projects, presumably while the other (non-gifted?) classmates continued to be “graded on information, neatness, and the student’s success in paraphrasing the sources used” (p. 14), which was exactly my school experience outside of the gifted program. I was absolutely “learning to follow orders and do the mental work necessary to keep society running smoothly,” and that if I cooperated, I “would have the rewards that well-paid, middle class work makes possible outside the workplace.” Whoa.

When comparing the polar opposite working class and executive elite classrooms, the teachers’ assumptions about their students was a determining factor in their pedagogy. In “the executive elite school the teachers regarded their students as having higher social status than themselves” (p.18), and regarding ideas around societal structure, “there was little questioning of the status quo” (p. 19). To keep students in line, they were often told, “It’s up to you,” reminding them of the expectation that they would be successful. Meanwhile, teachers in the working class schools often described students as “lazy” (p. 11), regarded creative assignments as “extra” (p. 10), and had low expectations for positive learning outcomes. Perhaps the most telling observation was that working class students were “learning to resist authority in ways sanctioned by their community,” while executive elite students “were learning to be masters of the universe” (p. 20).

In Ken Williams’ 2022 book Ruthless Equity, he names the enemy to equity in education as complacency – “a willful falling short of goal and purpose,” and claims that “complacency is the most corrosive force in education” (p.39). As a Providence parent of young children, I was aware of the reputation of our school district, and that our students mainly came from working and middle class families, but it wasn’t until I began researching schooling options for my children, that I gave any consideration to the idea that teachers’ presumptions about their students had an outsize influence on achievement. A prescribed attitude adjustment seemed to be at the heart of the new Providence Public School District (PPSD) philosophy. I can’t find the early communications that led me to think this, but it had to do with believing that students are capable of achieving more than previously thought. Just last month PPSD Superintendent Dr. Javier Montañez said in a statement:

"Our teachers and school leaders are working diligently to provide all students with the world-class education they deserve and there are clear signs that their efforts are yielding positive results for PPSD…. [W]e are proud that for the first time in our District’s history one of our elementary schools was recognized as a prestigious Blue Ribbon School for their progress in closing the achievement gap… exemplify[ing] what is possible when we prioritize our students…. We believe in the promise of ALL of our students and have invested significant time, resources, and support to lead them on a path to success."

I’m feeling good about my choice to send my children to our Providence neighborhood public school, as their assigned teachers’ attitudes seem to be the opposite of complacent, which I would describe as enthusiastically dedicated. I hope my children continue to be blessed with teachers connected to their “inward teacher,” described in Parker Palmer’s The Heart of a Teacher as “the living core of our lives that is addressed and evoked by any education worthy of the name.”

Colorblindness is the New Racism

In their 2013 text Deconstructing Privilege, author’s Armstrong and Wildman argue in their chapter titled: Colorblindness is the New Racism that not acknowledging white privilege’s pervasiveness in American culture perpetuates racial inequality; therefore, “identifying and understanding whiteness should be an essential component of education in the United States.” (p. 65)

Colorblindness was certainly a guiding value in my formative years, as a white female, believing that the goal of society should be equal treatment of everyone, period. The authors argue against practicing colorblindness, which centers whiteness as the societal norm, and instead advocate for a four-step process of color insight to provide the appropriate context in which to upend racism, by “1) considering context for any discussion about race; 2) examining systems of privilege; 3) unmasking perspectivelessness and white normativeness; and 4) combating stereotyping and looking for the me in each individual.” (p.68)

Essentially, practicing colorblindness is a convenient way for white people to ignore the realities of the race-based privileges they perhaps unknowingly enjoy (aka epistemic privilege, as noted in the Alan Johnson reading), while non-whites are assumed to be able to achieve similar outcomes without acknowledgment of the struggles that their lack of privilege generates.

Armstrong and Wildman claim: “If students and faculty can understand the origins for their perceptions of race, they may be more willing consciously to move from endorsing colorblindness to endorsing color insight.” (p. 68) College seems like an ideal setting in which to discuss race, ostensibly because there is more diversity, maturity, and curiosity. However, fewer than half of Americans graduate from college. If we wait until college to discuss race, will we have waited too long for many young Americans to realize the true effects of race on individuals? The trend of college-educated voters preferring candidates other than the current president cannot be ignored when considering how race and elitism infused the discourse surrounding the 2024 U.S. presidential election.

I particularly enjoyed learning about the various classroom exercises Armstrong and Wildman recommend for students to examine their own privilege, or lack thereof. One exercise asks students to speak about their grandmothers. My grandmother and grandfather live on land that my grandmother’s parents purchased over 70 years ago. My mother moved into the home my grandparents previously owned, and my sister now lives in my mother’s previous home in which we grew up. With increasing barriers to home ownership in the U.S., this story exemplifies the privilege of accumulated generational wealth within a white family – a story far more uncommon to families of color. (See image below.) To be clear, colorblindness alone did not lead to the racial gaps in generational wealth. Racist practices like redlining barred families of color from obtaining mortgages.

Ken Williams addresses colorblindness in his 2022 book Ruthless Equity. When discussing grouping students by ability (aka a tracking system), he argues that “standardized tests don’t measure intelligence; [they measure] content knowledge, which requires access. And in a tracking system, access is denied, and the cycle continues.” (p. 7) I loved taking standardized tests as a child, mainly because I did well on them (and I very much enjoy coloring in tiny circles with a sharp pencil). In the 1990s, the common assumption was that a “standardized” test set an equally high bar for all students, without considering what standard it was based within (whiteness).

Both the Armstrong & Wildman and Williams readings led me to revisit Eve Tuck’s Suspending Damage: A Letter to Communities in which she argues that “a desire-based framework is an antidote to damage-centered research…. Desire interrupts the binary of reproduction versus resistance.” Tuck is saying that when we examine and measure the impacts of inequality on different communities, we should resist projecting victimhood on those community members, because it’s far more effective to consider the needs, desires, or preferred outcomes of a community than label it as damaged. The perception of damage will lead to the expectation and acceptance of negative outcomes, like low standardized test scores.

https://reparations4slavery.com/the-racial-wealth-gap-understanding-the-economic-basis-for-repair/