Blog #7 on "Literacy with an Attitude" and Tracking in Schools

 

“Literacy with an Attitude” by Patrick J. Finn (Preface, Chapters 1 and 2)

“Tracking: Why Schools Need to Take Another Route” by Jeannie Oakes

Quotes

1.      “On one side when schools group by ability, teachers are better able to target individual needs and students will learn more… on the other side [people] oppose tracking because they believe it locks most students into classes where they are stereotyped as ‘less able’ and where they have fewer opportunities to learn” (Oakes p. 1)

I chose this as my first quote because I think that it clearly explains the supporting side versus the opposing side of tracking in schools. The information from the table below shows the effects seen in the classroom in top-track, lower-ability, and average classes when tracking is used. The expectations of students not in the top-track classes are lower and the work is less demanding. The students in the lower-level classes are not given opportunities to think critically and develop these skills, not giving them the chance to move forward to a top-track class. In the video on tracking that we watched in class, one of the students had to fight for herself to move out of a tracked, lower-level class. She felt that she got more from this class and that she was able to share her ideas and learn more from her peers. The teacher of this de-tracked class felt the same way and appeared enthusiastic.

Table information comes directly from the Oakes reading

The effect of tracking on students in top-track classes	The effects of tracking in the “low-ability” groups	The effects of tracking in “average” classes
·       More class time on learning activities and less time on discipline and socializing ·       Expected to spend more time doing homework ·       More enthusiastic teachers ·       Clearer instruction, better organization of tasks ·	·       Poor and minority students are placed in these groups more than other students ·       Teachers of these classes use stronger criticism and are less encouraging ·       Learning skills mostly consist of memorization ·       Fewer topics ·       Less depth of coverage	·       Teachers expect relatively little from students ·       Rarely ask students to think critically, deeply ·       Very set routines

 

2.      “They are coming to realize that liberating education and powerful literacy is essential for all children. But demands for better schooling will not solve the problem alone. Teachers, parents, and older students need to understand the mechanisms that have subverted honest efforts to give working-class children a decent education.” (Finn p. XII)

This quote presents the idea that better schooling alone does not solve the social discriminations that result in varying results of education for children from families of different social classes. Finn goes on to discuss the differences between the schooling of students in working class, middle class, affluent professional, and executive elite schools. Finn tells of the differences between teacher backgrounds, school operations, student expectations, and expected student outcomes upon finishing school. The differences in these schools are not the students fault, but they do exist. This reading explains how this can be a direct result of the social class of the students attending the school/the location of the school.

 

3.      “Anyon’s study supports the findings of earlier observers that in American schools children of managers and owners are rewarded for initiative and assertiveness, while children of the working-class are rewarded for docility and obedience and punished for initiative and assertiveness. (Finn p.20)

Table information comes directly from Chapter 2 of the Finn reading

Working-Class School	Middle-Class School	Affluent Professional School	Executive Elite School
·       Less discussion of controversial topics ·       Copying teacher’s notes, lab directions from workbooks ·       Teachers make derogatory remarks regarding the students ·       Teachers control students movements ·       Students showed no enthusiasm, less resistance to easy work so assignments were not demanding ·       Repetitious and mechanical work	·       Teachers value the knowledge from the textbooks/curriculum over than knowledge taught by experience ·       “work is getting the right answer” ·       Controversial topics were avoided because parents may complain ·       Teacher decision based on rules and regulations that are known to the students ·       students view knowledge as a valuable possession that can be traded for good grades, good college education, good job	·       teachers all come from middle- or upper-class backgrounds ·       creativity and personal development are important goals for the students ·       students have there work “verified” by other students before handing it in ·       Encouraged discussion on current events ·       Work is a creative activity carried out independently ·       Teachers rarely gave direct orders ·       Few rules ·       Dominant theme of “individualism,” minor theme of “humanitarianism” ·       Students and teachers negotiate	·       Teachers are all women married to high-status professionals and business execs. ·       Children required to plan and teach lessons ·       Little attempt to regulate students movement ·       Students were “boisterous and occasionally rude” and were brought back by being reminded of their responsibility to achieve ·       Dominant theme of “excellence” ·       The point of there school work is to achieve, excel, prepare for life at the top

 

 

 

"Early Education Gaps by Social Class and Race Start U.S. Children Out on Unequal Footing" from the Economic Policy Institute – This reading from 2015 discusses the gaps in 14 measured skills of children upon starting kindergarten based on their socioeconomic status and race/ethnicity.