It comes as no surprise to me that the new set of basic skills
required for a middle class job are more demanding than they were twenty years
ago, when any warm body close to the action was a viable candidate for hire. In Murnane and Levy’s book Teaching the New Basic Skills, they reify
this reality and affix it to a set of new basic skills that are demanded of the
middle class in the late 20th and 21st century: the ‘hard
skills’ of perfunctory mathematics, problem solving and reading abilities, and
the ability to use basic functions on a computer; and the ‘soft skills’ of
being able to work in groups, and the ability to make effective presentations. Murnane and Levy maintain, through reporting
on the modern hiring procedures of Diamond Star Motors, Honda, and Northwestern
Mutual Life Insurance, that companies now hire college graduates when 20 years
ago they would have hired high school graduates, because present day high
school graduates lack the new set of basic skills required to perform these
jobs. In other words, the nature
of the work has evolved, but the quality of the high school graduate in America
has not. Hence, college graduates
are hired instead. This has,
naturally, lead to an increasing variance in average salary between the 21st
century high school graduate and that of the 1970’s high school graduate.
In short, a high school degree is not worth what it once was. For instance, if a male and female high
school graduate were married and started a family in 1993 they would have had a
tough go at it, since their combined yearly income would barely reach $35,000.
What is particularly troubling is when I consider the thesis of
Murmane’s article (the economic and skills disparity between high school and
college graduates is increasing) alongside Jean Anyon’s research in Social
Class and School Knowledge, where she studies the academic rigor variance –
among other things - between working, middle, upper, and affluent classes in
public schools. Anyon observes a
proliferation of rote factual memorization skills taught in working class and
middle class schools, with little to no teaching of the history and ideology of
socio-economic class disparity.
Moreover, Anyon described affluent class and upper class teachers
encouraging students to think for themselves, in contrast with teachers from
the other two classes that do not.
Therefore, working class and lower-middle class students will, by and
large, leave schools without the new set of basic skills Murnane and Levy conclude
are necessary for the modern working force. It seems to me that lower class students are being prepared
for the hegemonious structures and rote routines of prison instead of being
prepared for the work force.
Thus, what is needed for working class and lower-middle class students
is a school that embeds class conflict history and ideology into curriculum;
also needed is a school that encourages analytical thought and open-ended
questions instead of mechanical memorization of useless facts. Unfortunately, as I think about my own
experiences teaching working class and lower-middle class students, it seems
that few schools like this exist.
What I have seen is a surplus of no-excuses schools that have uniformly strict
discipline codes and boot camp routines.
Those within these schools argue that working class students thrive in
highly structured environments due to a lack of structure in their lives
outside of academia. However, there
are various forms of highly structured school models that do not fall under the
banner of ‘No Excuses’ – for instance, Montessori schools. In the latter, there is an emphasis on
hands on learning and analysis as opposed to isolated rote learning.
Anyon, J. (1981). Social
class and school knowledge. Curriculum Inquiry, 11(1), 3-41. http://www.jstor.org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/openurl?volume=11&date=1981&spage=3&issn=03626784&issue=1&
No comments:
Post a Comment