Entry #4 -- "Everybody Knows"

In my blog last week, I used the debate to supplement the Kozol readings since the answers of the candidates pertained to available resources. This week, I will supplement the Anyon readings focusing on the "hidden curriculum" of education in relation to social classes.

"Store facts in your head like cold storage -- until you need it later for a test..."
(Anyon, 79)

Obviously when reading the passages, I, like many others, thought back to our elementary and secondary education to try to figure out where we "fit in." I had a teacher who said that the job of the teachers at that school was to prepare us to take the standardized tests: "You will learn how to think in college." This statement is why, at the time, I thought all public schools operated under the same principles. The aim of public education (or so I thought at the time) was to give you a basic ("boring") education of reading, writing, grammar, mathematics, and social studies while also having you write and memorize facts that the teacher put up on the board or read in class which you would later regurgitate for tests and college assessment exams like the SATs and ACTs. The "advanced education" ("interesting" learning) would be done in college -- where you would learn how to think, how to analyze, how to critically discuss topics; and you would do this with active participation with others who were equally as active and interested in wanting to learn more. College is where we would be more proactive in what we able to learn. (At least for those of us who might be able to make it to college. Other students were encouraged to take the vocational technology route where they attended school for half a day and then the vo-tech for half a day. Still, others were encouraged to get their GED because they would end up "barefoot and pregnant by 16.") I remember in high school (not the 5th grade), though, being asked a few "critical analysis" questions in the A.P. English course, but they were not based on what we thought, rather they were what we thought the author was thinking or what the author's purpose was, and to best answer these types of questions, we were instructed to quote a few lines from the readings and supplement them basically with paraphrases from the explanations in the text following the reading. Our research papers also consisted of paraphrasing and presenting information -- we were not to include our analysis because "first-person opinions should not be presented in research papers." The mechanical note-taking process existed throughout a majority of my educational process -- even in high school.

Given that a majority of students come from similar middle- and working-class school structures (in Anyon's 1980 article, these two classes accounted for 77.5% of the population), I find it interesting, then, that a lot of colleges jump immediately to expanding on ideas and habits taught more at the affluent professional and executive elite schools with seemingly no recognition that for most of us, we're not accustomed to that type of education. Some instructors have berated students for not participating more actively in discussions usually contributing it to a lack of being prepared for the material presented (which is, of course, true in some cases) instead of hesitating, at least for a moment, to consider that maybe we're not used to being able to speak up in class -- unlike in our current class, where it's been brought to our attention on more than one occasion that we're allowed to talk, etc. (and that we don't have to raise our hands and be given permission to do so). Over 13 years of being told to keep quiet and to not ask questions because the completed process will have answered any relevant questions develops quite a hard habit to break, especially in the beginning of the semester. Oftentimes, we're expected to draw qualitative connections to other things we have learned which can be difficult when a majority of what we learned was how to write down facts from given lectures. While in general theory, these are excellent approaches to developing an expansion of knowledge and perceptions, some accommodations recognizing the limitations of the public school system should be made -- even if just early in the semester -- to encourage more active exploration of the studies. Even a majority of community colleges teach at a middle-class type level so transfer students into their third and fourth years may no doubt experience some apprehension in adjusting to the new "rules" of being allowed to voice their own opinion without fear of being told their opinion is incorrect -- provided they can sufficiently defend their opinion, of course.


While reading the rest of the passage, I was reminded of a (really) old song my dad used to sing occasionally called "Everybody Knows" by Leonard Cohen. The lyrics I thought about are listed below, but I'm also including a video of the song for those who may want to hear it.


Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows the war is over
Everybody knows the good guy's lost
Everybody knows the fight is fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
That’s how it goes
Everybody knows
Everybody knows that the boat is leaking
Everybody knows that the captain lied
Everybody got this broken feeling
Like their father or their dog just died

(I didn't say I thought it was a good song; it's a bit haunting, but it's one, of many songs, that I remember my dad singing along to when he heard it and came to mind when I was thinking about the article.)

Also, while reading the descriptions of the working and middle class curricula, I thought back to another passage I read called "The Banking Model of Education" by Paulo Freire in which he states the formal education system is too much like a "banking model" in which the teacher deposits information into the minds of the students and should instead take a more active approach which engages the individual in the learning process, similar to the curricula at the affluent and elite schools. (For those not familiar with the Freire's "Banking Model," you can read about it here: Freire's Banking Model Explained. Even John Dewey held a strong belief that individuals need to be engaged in their learning in order for education to be successful. (Although, I agree with aspects of these philosophies, I think for today's society, a combination of philosophies might be a better approach than adapting or following one particular school of reform.) To summarize though, the banking model values a more authoritarian approach to education (similar to the regime explained in Kozol and in Anyon's description of the working and middle class curricula) whereas an active, humanitarian model emphasizes the partnership of the teacher and students and values communication -- more found in the affluent and elite schools.

I've often said that "I'm not that creative of a person." After reading about the affluent school curriculum, I wonder if perhaps I do have a creative side that maybe wasn't tapped into or developed... And, in general, I think a strong focus on learning the English language in its entirety (not just punctuation or basic grammar) is of paramount importance, especially in written and oral communications and wish I would have had more opportunity with practicing my grammar in preparation for written and oral communications. The elite schools obviously understand how important this is to the perception of how intelligent a person seems and how others relate to that person as a result. It is not necessarily a measure of a person's intelligence but it is a contributor in how others perceive one's status in society (and in how educated you are) which can be very important in a number of situations and especially when interviewing for jobs.

[It was interesting (but not surprising) that the parents' contribution to the students' education weren't mentioned at all until the descriptions of the affluent and elite structures -- reminded me of our previous classroom discussion about the inequality of parents as educational resources as well.]

For those who came from schools with curricula similar to the affluent and elite schools, did you read anything about the other types that perhaps you might have appreciated but didn't get? What are some of the things lacking in your education that you didn't realize until after you came to college -- or maybe until after taking this course? Do you think sometimes you take college (or took your elementary/secondary education) for granted?

For those from schools similar to the middle and working class curricula, did you find it difficult to transition to college? What strengths did you develop throughout your education that you might not have obtained at a school structured to a different social class? I wonder if we were better prepared to overcome certain obstacles or if maybe we have a different level of determination and motivation for completing college. I think for some in the other two classes, perhaps college is more expected; whereas for me and maybe some of you, it's more of a privilege?