The upper middle class world I grew up in was vastly different than the working class world that Lynda Barry and Mike Rose’s mother, Rosie grew up in. I had two parents working white collar jobs; my mom a dental hygienist and my dad a mechanical engineer for Verizon Wireless. I went to a public, regional high school with enough funding to not only offer art and music class, but to offer sub categories of art and music, such as mechanical drawing and various different band classes. It is safe to say the teachers working there didn’t have “poor salaries” and the students who attended, including me, graduated with white collar brilliance. But while I was privileged enough to grow up in this upper middle class world, it wasn’t really me in the upper middle class. It was my parents. I wasn’t paying to attend this school, my parents were. While I was receiving a higher class education, I personally worked a blue collar retail job and took my experience with the arts for granted. Like Rosie, I was able to attain “higher level thinking” while doing a job that seemed so simple to others. And because I was in marching band, I am able to see Lynda Barry’s perspective on how the arts can be seen as a “life preserver carried into your home”. People still seem to assume that a higher social class means you’re more intelligent. But why?
…show more content…
Just because people expect social class and education to have a direct relationship, that is not always the case. As I have learned through my experiences, and Rosie and Lynda Barry have learned through theirs, education comes in many different forms, and social class is not always an indicator of it. One of the problems associated with the relationship between education and social class is the fact that people living in a lower socioeconomic area are being deprived of learning the creative side of education. This is a major reason that people think lower class people are receiving education that is less valuable. Value in education is defined by how well rounded your education is and by what means you receive your education. Unfortunately, because there is not enough funding in lower socioeconomic areas, art and music programs are often cut out of the education program and by default these children’s educations are now considered to be “less valuable”. Although the idea that their education is less valuable because of this is not really true, the fact that they are being underestimated because they don’t have creative experience is true. In a way, society is a hypocrite against creativity in education. When there isn’t enough funding for schools, the arts and music programs are the ones being cut, but when it comes to valuable characteristics in education, creativity is one of the most valuable. As Lynda Barry states in The Sanctuary of School, “She believed in the natural healing power of painting and drawing for troubled children… I learned to build myself a life preserver I could carry into my home.” (Barry, 859). For Barry But if this statement us true, then why do people still insist that creativity is so valuable in education? If creativity is so valuable, then why do schools still cut creative programs out of their education system? This is yet another reason why upper class people are considered to be better educated. People living in high socioeconomic areas have enough funding to include art and music programs, and therefore are able to receive creativity in their education. They are considered “more important” because they have a background with creativity. But this is an unfair advantage because lower class people are not choosing to be without creativity, they are not choosing to be considered “less important.” Creativity is being taken away from these children, and they do not have a say in it. Creativity is being treated as a privilege, and if you aren’t fortunate enough to be able to afford to attend a school with creative programs, then that privilege is taken away from you, and your education is now considered less valuable and you are considered less important, all because of one skill you weren’t fortunate enough to have. However, there are other types of intelligence that are
Just because people expect social class and education to have a direct relationship, that is not always the case. As I have learned through my experiences, and Rosie and Lynda Barry have learned through theirs, education comes in many different forms, and social class is not always an indicator of it. One of the problems associated with the relationship between education and social class is the fact that people living in a lower socioeconomic area are being deprived of learning the creative side of education. This is a major reason that people think lower class people are receiving education that is less valuable. Value in education is defined by how well rounded your education is and by what means you receive your education. Unfortunately, because there is not enough funding in lower socioeconomic areas, art and music programs are often cut out of the education program and by default these children’s educations are now considered to be “less valuable”. Although the idea that their education is less valuable because of this is not really true, the fact that they are being underestimated because they don’t have creative experience is true. In a way, society is a hypocrite against creativity in education. When there isn’t enough funding for schools, the arts and music programs are the ones being cut, but when it comes to valuable characteristics in education, creativity is one of the most valuable. As Lynda Barry states in The Sanctuary of School, “She believed in the natural healing power of painting and drawing for troubled children… I learned to build myself a life preserver I could carry into my home.” (Barry, 859). For Barry But if this statement us true, then why do people still insist that creativity is so valuable in education? If creativity is so valuable, then why do schools still cut creative programs out of their education system? This is yet another reason why upper class people are considered to be better educated. People living in high socioeconomic areas have enough funding to include art and music programs, and therefore are able to receive creativity in their education. They are considered “more important” because they have a background with creativity. But this is an unfair advantage because lower class people are not choosing to be without creativity, they are not choosing to be considered “less important.” Creativity is being taken away from these children, and they do not have a say in it. Creativity is being treated as a privilege, and if you aren’t fortunate enough to be able to afford to attend a school with creative programs, then that privilege is taken away from you, and your education is now considered less valuable and you are considered less important, all because of one skill you weren’t fortunate enough to have. However, there are other types of intelligence that are