Literacy with an Attitude: Educating Working-Class Children in Their Own Self-Interest

By Patrick J. Finn

Talking Points

1. (Preface) "One explanation is that we have come so far in our democracy that we have nothing to fear from the have-nots. We worry instead that the low levels of literacy among them make them a liability for the rest of us." 
Reading this right at the beginning of the article already struck me to realize that the "we" Finn keeps addressing are the SCWAAMP-y (high SES, White, privileged, etc) folks that Johnson continues to haunt us about. By choosing to live in the status-quo because "we" are unaffected by the negative consequences and injustices, such as literacy and education, does nothing to benefit the greater whole, and continues to draw that "power line" in the sand. The notion of the 2 kinds of education (empowering vs. domesticating) was so eye opening for me, since it is quite evident there is this difference based on the culture of power. I had never truly thought about how accurate this is before (thus exposing my own privilege). 

2."Contemporary social scientists believe that if we can understand these mechanisms, we can change them and bring ourselves to a different place, one where there is greater equity and justice. That would require that both the rich and poor get empowering education and powerful literacy." This connects nearly directly to Delpit's 5 rules of the culture of power. It is astonishing how logical it sounds, yet we, as a whole society, are still not taking enough ACTION to make this necessary change. How do we convince those in the highest power, who have the most influence (the top-down scenario) to shift this movement with full momentum so everyone is on-board? Because everyone at the bottom is aware of the problem already. 
"When rich children get empowering education nothing changes.
But when working-class children get empowering education you
get literacy with an attitude." Those in lower class backgrounds who get empowering literacy are "woke" to this difference and are willing to say something, and address the injustice. Finn stresses that everyone should want to have this fire inside them to effect change, not just the "have-nots." It is disgusting how this movement could be interpreted as a plague to the controlling, conditional world certain entitled "haves" have created. And those "haves" in power who do acknowledge this problem, cannot just go on with assumed "good intentions."

3. (end) "In the affluent professional school the dominant theme was
individualism with a minor theme of humanitarianism. Emphasis in the classroom was on thinking for oneself, creativity, and discovery in science and arithmetic. But there was also a pervasive climate of mutual help and concern for one another and for humanity." 
This is such a perfect statement of balance between our society's mindset of the "individual" and the "collective concern for all" and even connected to Ana's post about how the former far outweighs the latter in our present day. Providing students with tools, freedom, and EMPOWERMENT in their education to think, discover, build knowledge through their own trial and error, and construct their own ideas and awareness of how the world works, gives them an edge like no other. I am questioning my own practice again, and wonder if I am doing the best I can to encourage and guide my little learners to build autonomy, express their creativity and find intrinsic motivation for learning?


Argument

Finn argues that those in the culture of power must be conscious and willing to take action to uproot the status quo of this difference in learned education, since all classes of people should be given access to empowering education and powerful literacy; we must realize the value of the collective power, because the working class are not equipped with the resources or capabilities to do it alone. 

"The status quo is the status quo because people who have the
power to make changes are comfortable with the way things are. It
takes energy to make changes, and the energy must come from the
people who will benefit from the change. But the working class
does not get powerful literacy, and powerful literacy is necessary

for the struggle. How can the cycle be broken?"


P.S. I actually had uploaded an amazing article from the New York Times to my own Facebook a few weeks ago (before I took this course!) that shows how providing literacy to those who once couldn't afford/access the cost of this luxury is a powerful message beyond words...no pun intended.

Running Out of Children, a South Korea School Enrolls Illiterate Grandmothers

     

The American Dream still?