I must say that this book was very difficult for me to read. Even with me going back and reviewing the text, it took me a while to grasp some of the points the author made. It was not until the end of the second chapter that I got a little more clarity. I find it interesting how the author chose to do her research by using narratives of children’s lives. Although she cites other authors, it seems the bulk of her information comes from first-hand experience and knowledge of children. When we are asked to read research or teach a new strategy based on research I feel better when I know that what the author is speaking about is based on real people in their own environment. In this way, we can relate better to what the author says. Many times when we read research it is based on a study done in a controlled environment and the context of the work is not authentic. I’m sure many of us can relate some of what Hicks talk about to students we have encountered in our teaching or our own lives in some way. Hick’s book focuses on white working class children because she felt they were misrepresented in research and books. Initially I was not sure, if this is the case, but when I think back on books and articles I have had to read for class or work I can understand the authors point. Many of the texts were focused on other ethnic groups and ESL learners. I wondered if this is because we know public schooling was created for white middle class children and we tend to group all white children into this group. After reading this and thinking about the white students I have worked with, I think poor and working class whites may be treated differently in school as compared to middle class whites. Working class is working class. I think all children in working class families are misrepresented and are often overlooked in education. Many of the experiences, values, and literacy experiences of working class children are often different from their middle-class teachers’ values. In many ways, the way we teach and think a child should act comes from how we were raised and what our values/beliefs are. We have to think about the whole child when we are educating them-where they are from, what their experiences are, how they are raised, what are their literacy practices at home, etc. I try to think about my children’s lives and their experiences, but it is sometimes easy to forget. I sometimes think that children should act a certain way or relate to something that seems common when in actuality it may not be something they are familiar with in their lives. Sometimes it is hard to remember that, but I try to. I think it is important, as Hicks did, to connect with children by learning more about their home life and literacy experiences to find out about how they learn and interact within their culture.
The chapter on situated histories was informative. The example Hicks gave on pages 18-19 about Jake and Lee Ann was interesting. The way the family handled the situation does give you a glimpse into the children’s lives and how they may handle certain situations at school. It also gives you an idea of their practice at home and how these experiences shape their learning. Think about it. If this is how these children interact everyday and they do not interact with print in their environment, it is going to affect how they interact with literary learning at school. I know many of my students’ and their families interact the same was as Jake and Lee Ann.
The things Hicks write about can be applied to other races with working class children. We can see how many children experiences outside of school can cause friction between them and school practices.
Comments (5)
I agree with you that sometimes a students perception and ours is totally different. Sometimes it amazes me the topic that they know the least about. A good example of this happened in my class this year. One of my students is a very quiet child in the classroom. One day he had to stay with me until his mother came to pick him up afterschool. He was only there for about 15 minutes but I couldn't believe how much he talked. He had never talked so much during school nor asked so many questions. What was so amazing was the things he asked were such common things. That just goes to show that we sometimes take for mistakenly think that our experiences are the same for them. It really brought that home to me.
Posted by Sara Joyce | June 5, 2007 9:23 PM
Posted on June 5, 2007 21:23
Danielle,
I agree that reading research reports that study the *context* as much how the people interact with those contexts is extremely important.
Your comments about class are very insightful. I have seen a lot of middle class values and expectations be a "hidden" part of schooling. Working-class children and youth are at a real disadvantage in such a system -- and we'll learn more about that as we move through Hicks's book.
Alecia
Posted by Prof. Alecia Jackson | June 5, 2007 9:40 PM
Posted on June 5, 2007 21:40
Hi Danielle,
Just like you, I was very interested in the fact that Hicks chose to study working-class children. Before reading this book, I hadn't really thought about working-class children being different from middle-class children. I definitely see Hicks' point as I look back on the text now. Coming from a school filled with working-class students, I definitely see the need for this type of research. Research such as this could help each of us to know how to better understand and teach these types of students. I am very excited about reading the rest of this book in order to see what results Hicks finds.
I was also very interested in the interaction between Jake and Lee Ann in Chapter 2. As I read this section, I kept thinking about my own extended family. Several of my working-class Aunts and Uncles allow this type of behavioral interaction between their own children. I had never thought about the impact that their interaction could have until I read this book. Is this type of parenting something we should try to change/correct? Should we tell our parents/family that there instruction could eventually be detrimental to the learning of their child?
Kelly Mabe
Posted by Kelly Mabe | June 6, 2007 8:51 AM
Posted on June 6, 2007 08:51
Danielle,
I'm not so sure that the kind of social interaction that took place between Jake and Le Ann in chapter 2 is behavior that is limited to working class children alone. Just because a working class family was observed and documented as participating in this particular behavior doesn't mean that middle class and upper class famlies don't exhibit similar behaviors. I am not convinced that social class alone makes a child either more or less likely to experience difficulty conforming to school expectations. However, the readings are informative and shed light on the impact a child's home life can have on his/her ability to adapt to expectations in a school setting.
Vickie Howell
Posted by Vickie Howell | June 6, 2007 10:46 PM
Posted on June 6, 2007 22:46
I agree with you that we should be careful not to say that only white working class children are looked at differently in school. I think Mrs. Hicks picked this group of children though b/c not much research has been done on them. I think most of society thinks about poor, ignorant ragamuffins when they think about poor white kids. TV has not done much to help (Annie, Beverly Hillbillies, any movies with a West Virginia theme). I think we as teachers need to help ALL kids realize that there are these stereotypes out there, and how they can overcome any of them.
I also have had experiences with children who have been raised like Jake and Lee Ann. These children are a challenge, b/c like you said, that's not how most teachers were raised, and i think we struggle to know what to do with children like this. I hope Mrs. Hicks gets into some strategies that could be helpful later in the book.
Posted by Andrea Lehman | June 11, 2007 3:57 PM
Posted on June 11, 2007 15:57