Blog #8

Literacy with an Attitude

Educating Working-Class Children in Their Own Self-Interest by Patrick J. Finn

Argument: 

    

    I'll begin this argument with a quote from Patrick Finn that I think changes everything: "I was educating these children, not to take charge of their lives, but to take orders." This simple phrase changed everything for me.

    School is the engine of social mobility, but is it truly designed for all of us to thrive? Well, Professor Finn, in his article Literacy with an Attitude, argues that it isn't. He shows us the two divisions between those who have power and those who don't, and how this affects children and education in general. On the one hand, we have domestic education, which is based on "Functional Literacy," essentially training children to be productive and obedient workers, but not to question or transform their reality. On the other hand, there is empowered education, which is based on the concept of "Power Literacy" for upper-class students, where they receive an education that prepares them to lead and make informed decisions. From there, you can see the difference with the other one above. In Chapter Two, Jean Anyon emphasizes that working-class schools are evaluated based on criteria other than critical thinking. This is not a conspiracy but a social inertia that must be broken. The real battle for equity is not only to demand better resources, but also to ensure that everyone has "Literacy with an Attitude," a critical literacy that empowers us to fight for justice and change, not just for a salary. Anyon also clarifies two things that are essential to me in this argument: Working-class children were developing a relationship with the economy, authority, and work that is appropriate preparation for wage labor, a mechanical and routine job. Their capacity for creativity and planning was often ignored or denied, while the dominant theme in middle-class schools was one of possibility.

    Society has indirectly separated education between those with power and those without. Those who are there to be "important" and those who are there to "nod and obey." What is the system really seeking? Equality or inequality disguised as goodwill? Umm. The reality is that they don't want to admit that those who have money or live in a better neighborhood have the opportunity to improve their lives. In contrast, others are relegated to a role in the never-ending cycle of society.

    The teachers' biggest excuse was:  that these children couldn't be taught anything. Their parents don't care about them; they're not interested in them. The best thing we can do for them is keep them busy. The central argument here was that these working-class children didn't have a low IQ; the problem here was that society had given up, and they had plenty of excuses.

    Both Finn and Anyon address this in a real, substantive way, with foundation and evidence.

Question to share:

Is there any solution to this type of functional, or, as I would say, controlled literacy?