"Social Class and the Hidden Curriculum of Work" Reading Response

In the reading "Social Class and the Hidden Curriculum of Work", author Joan Anyon attempts to lend support to the theory that schools educating children from a certain socioeconomic background are using specific types of classroom work to educate their students to fill occupations characteristic of their same class. Specifically, that schools for working class children teach children to be blue-collar workers, while more affluent schools instruct children to fulfill more skilled, executive roles in the workforce.  In the section where she describes the "Executive Elite" schools, Anyon relates observations that students in these schools are given a great deal of control over their learning process and that they are greatly encouraged to employ analytical thinking in order to solve a problem.  She also says that observers noted the students doing a great deal of complex work, mostly involving research, critical thinking, and reasoning tasks.  Further observations show that children in this class of school are encouraged to give their opinion on various concepts and ideas in class, especially when they are attempting to develop a process for solving a problem.  The children in this type of classroom setting are also allowed a great deal of freedom in their movement around the class and even made to be "student teachers", so that the responsibility for learning is placed even more firmly on the students' shoulders.  Also, observers relate that the teachers in this class of school create an open and engaging environment for their students--they encourage students to give their opinions on all work-related subjects and they also give them the ability to challenge and discuss points of contention in the classroom where appropriate.  In the concluding paragraphs, Anyon says that the evidence and observations related in the article serve to prove the existence of a "hidden curriculum of work"--that schools from each socioeconomic class: (a) prepare their students for jobs characteristic of their same classes, and (b) how students from each class of school are socialized to interpret work, authority, and success in school differently based on their social class. Anyon concludes by reiterating that the experiences a child can have in school can influence the place that child occupies in society after school ends.

After reading the assigned section for "Executive Elite" schools and the paper's conclusion, I have mixed feelings as to whether Anyon argued her point well.  I think that she gave some very good examples of how each school works, but she never really gets down to the point of comparing and contrasting each school and class.  The differences are clear if you read each section, but at no point do I see the author making these differences plain.  I think the "data" portion of this paper is clear and well related, for I feel that the author gave very good illustrations and examples of the practices in each social class of school. I just don't think she ever clearly completed the "interpretation" section of the paper where she should've highlighted differences and similarities between each of the classes.  Also, I think that her sample size is a bit limited.  It seems to me that she thought this as well, for, at the end of the article, she calls for further investigations to be made to lend support to her theory.  I do not believe that studying five schools and one grade within each school is enough evidence to conclusively prove her theory, but I do think the evidence she gives is rich and compelling.  I just think more schools and more grades need to be sampled, though I realize this would not be a simple undertaking.  After reading this paper, I am left with the question of whether or not there is more to this story.  I would like to have seen more classrooms observed within each social class, so that many different teaching and learning environments might be analyzed.  I would also like to see what happened to the students within each class observed--maybe a longitudinal study should've been conducted alongside this one to see what sorts of occupations these students would really hold after their experiences in school.  Seeing more and richer evidence might help me to believe more in the "hidden curriculum of work" theory proposed by Anyon here, but as it is, I am not completely convinced.

I do agree with Anyon to a certain extent that a student's social class could have some bearing on how they learn in school and how they approach schoolwork.  It would be hard to deny the connection between wealth and educational resources available to students and teachers, but I don't necessarily think it has everything to do with it.  I feel that a student's experiences in school are dependent on a great deal of other factors both inside and outside of the classroom, and I don't know that socioeconomic class has the greatest effect on schoolwork.  Teaching styles and learning environments are as unique as the teachers and students themselves and this could also have a great deal to do with the differing evidence observed in these classrooms.  Maybe someone should attempt to investigate how a similar type of classroom setting and similar types of resources may have an effect on students from differing backgrounds.  That kind of study would yield some interesting results in terms of how students are prepared to work, and I would be very interested in the findings.

The teachers attempted to keep tight control over the children

during lessons, and the children were sometimes flippant, boisterous, and occasionally rude.

However, the children may be brought into line by reminding them that "It is up to you." "You must

control yourself," "you are responsible for your work," you must "set your own priorities."

I thought the above line was very ineresting because it seemed to draw attention to both the greatest success and failure inherent in the "Executive Elite" classroom environment.  In creating an environment where students are given a great deal of freedom and authority, the children are allowed to develop a great deal of responsibility over their own education, and this is integral to their development as independent thinkers. But this great benefit seems to come at the cost of classroom management. From reading this quote, it appears that the students balked at the authority of the teacher and the rudeness may have come as a result of the teacher's attempt to take back that position of authority from them.  At one point, a teacher in this class of school was observed to say that she "thought 'these children' would have more control.  That's the point, really--they seemed to have a bit more control in the classroom than the teacher herself and therefore they got confused as the identity of the real authority in the classroom.  This is different than behavior observed in the lower classes of school, where classrooms are ruled by the teacher and behavior is strictly monitored.  I think that classroom management in most cases would be the biggest challenge faced by teachers at these "Executive Elite" schools because, in giving them a great deal of freedom, students are given a greater share of the power and can become confused when that freedom is threatened for the sake of maintaining order.  Still, I think the risks outweigh the benefits. Students at these schools are benefiting from being held accountable for their own work because they're being asked to consider bigger concepts than just the task at hand, making them more capable of independent, critical thought that observed of their peers at lower classes of school.