Finn Argument

6/3/09 In chapter 2 of Literacy With an Attitude, Finn argues Jean Anyon's observation exceedingly well, that there are four types of educational experiences in American schools, those of the executive elite, the affluent professional, the middle class and the working class. Although the children observed in four schools in northern New Jersey were predominately white and had similar text books, there social class created a “startling difference” in the nature of their educational outcome.

According to Finn, the children in the working class school district were presented with a fact driven curriculum of following step by step directions. Teachers spoke disparagingly about their students, showing a pessimistic view of student potential. The main objective of the teachers appeared to be controlling the students movements and access within the classroom. The children's reaction to this learning environment was, according to Finn, “resistance”. Resistance came in the form of vandalism of school property, classroom disruption, and attention-getting behaviors. The results of these antics seemed to please the perpetrators of the pranks, creating an environment controlled by the students to retaliate for, as Finn calls it, “the mechanical and routine that denies their capacity for creativity and planning”.

Having slightly more optimism for their students, teachers in the middle class schools offered the idea that with hard work there was the “possibility” of success in the middle class working world, that is, good grades, a college education and a good job someday for those who followed the rules and regulations. According to Finn, these are the kinds of jobs, that would not offer an opportunity for creativity and self expression, but would afford them an opportunity to fulfill those needs outside of work. Most of the teachers were much like their students. They were raised and currently lived in the neighborhood of the school they worked in, seemingly connected to their students fulfilling the American dream.

However, students in the affluent professional school were offered what the middle class and working class school students were not afforded, an environment open to pursue “creativity and personal development.” Teachers encouraged free thinking, self expression and an opportunity to discover and make sense of personal experiences. As well as math and science skills, students were taught higher level concepts of economic development and government. Students learned independent thinking instead of following the directive of others. Besides giving the right answers, students trained in higher level thinking can answer the why and the how questions. Although individuality was stressed, humanitarianism was a key theme in the development of these young minds. These children were primed to become more than supporting roles in society, they would play a creative role in science, government and academe, acquiring social power and high incomes.

The pinnacle of educational expectations for American students is the executive elite. Their education, according to Finn, was sophisticated, intellectual and rigorous. Like the affluent professional schools, these students were taught by female teachers who were married to executives and business leaders in powerful positions in society, however, the students were considered a higher status than the teachers. Unlike the working class students, these students were given freedom and positions of control in the classroom. They were being prepared to be future leaders. As such, their social status and the inequities of society were allowed to remain in tact in their mind as the way things have always been, somehow making it right and expected to continue. These students were being prepared to be the brightest and the best, as Finn describes, “excellence.”

When analyzing the disparity in the four educational environments I found a striking resemblance to Bloom's Taxonomy for higher level thinking. As we remember from our education classes, Bloom's Taxonomy offers categories of questions that support deeper thinking as we ask our students questions. The hierarchy of thinking asks questions to ascertain knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. At the lowest level of thinking is knowledge or recall. These are the facts and data answers that the students from the working class schools are being taught to remember. Little more appears to be expected of them than rote memorization. In the hierarchy of expectations the next two levels of thinking are comprehension and application. These levels of thinking are slightly more sophisticated, similar to the middle class environment, because it asks students not just to remember what has been read or heard, but to describe and explain what is meant and use the information to solve problems. The fourth and fifth tier on the Bloom's Taxonomy pyramid are analysis and synthesis, requiring one to use logic and semantics as well as creativity and originality. This could be related to the affluent professional environment as students at this school were given an opportunity for discovery, self expression and creativity. Finally the pinnacle of the pyramid is evaluation, making decisions and supporting view, requiring understanding of values. The students of executive elite were given control over their environment in the classroom and the ability to make decisions about their learning. As these students were expected to plan and teach lessons in the classroom, they were becoming accustomed to being the decision makers for their future position in society.

As Finn described, in England at the advent of the printing press, commoners were prevented from reading by imposing a tax on pamphlets, thus preventing them from thinking about raising their standard of living and their place in the hierarchy of power. The culture of power continue to holds on tightly to the status quo and inequities remain for the working class.