Week 2 Blog

 Week Two Blog

In reviewing this week’s readings, I tried to determine where my school might fall within the classifications described in Anyon's (1980) Social Class and the Hidden Curriculum. Interestingly, I noticed many similarities between my colleagues and the characteristics of the Affluent Professional School, even though we are a public school in rural Oklahoma. At the same time, our professional development and instructional conversations are geared toward practices associated with the Executive Elite School.

In my own classroom, I practice some Executive Elite instruction. Rather than simply teaching formulas, I ask students to discover the formula. Anyon (1980) describes a classroom in which teachers ask students whether they agree or disagree with an answer. I ask my students the same thing. Sometimes this looks as simple as a thumbs-up or thumbs-down, but when there is disagreement, students must defend their thinking. Students being able to explain their thinking aligns with the expectations described in more affluent school settings, even in our rural context.

As a faculty, we also strive to use technology in meaningful ways rather than as a replacement for paper and pencil. Before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic, our staff had many conversations about how technology could enhance instruction and extend learning opportunities for students. When integrating technology, we have looked at and considered frameworks like the Triple E Framework and the SAMR model to guide our technology usage. These frameworks push technology to support student engagement, enhance understanding, and connect learning beyond the classroom.

At the same time, data show that access and use are not equal for all students. Lenhart (2015) reports that 92% of youth aged 12–17 go online daily, 97% play digital games, and 75% own a smartphone. While the data suggests widespread access, it does not account for differences in skill level, support, or how technology is used for learning. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2024–2025), our district is classified as rural, has approximately 8% more male students than female students, and has a free-and-reduced-lunch rate of about 30%. These factors point to potential divides in both access and opportunity.

One inequity I see directly in my role concerns gender in STEM participation. In my two STEM classes, I have a total of 34 students, but fewer than 30% are female. The gap can be influenced by access, confidence, and prior exposure to technology-related learning opportunities. The girls have expressed discontent with being the minority, even when the student is a great fit for the class. 

Socioeconomic status also contributes to digital inequity within our community. Although our school’s overall economic indicators are higher than the Garfield County average, with only 2.1% of the population below the poverty line (Census Reporter, n.d.), students who qualify for free or reduced lunch still exist and should not be overlooked. Even though these students represent a smaller percentage of the population, they still need help meeting their technology needs. 

Educational data can shine light on the balances within our community. Approximately 93.7% of adults have completed high school, and 27.5% have earned a bachelor’s degree or higher (Census Reporter, n.d.). The data suggests an emphasis on education and college readiness, which is reflected in the expectations placed on students. Parents also demonstrate high levels of commitment, with 94% of adults over age 25 completing high school or higher and 37% obtaining some college education or more.

References

Anyon, J. (1980). Social class and the hidden curriculum of work. Journal of Education, 162(1), 67–92.

Darvin, R. (2019). Youth, technology, and the hidden curriculum of the 21st century. Youth and Globalization, 1(2), 210–229.

Farrell, L. (2009). The global politics of language. Routledge.

Kolb, L. (2017). Learning first, technology second: The educator’s guide to designing authentic lessons. International Society for Technology in Education.

Lenhart, A. (2015). Teens, social media & technology overview 2015. Pew Research Center.

North, S., Snyder, I., & Bulfin, S. (2008). Digital tastes: Social class and young people’s technology use. Information, Communication & Society, 11(7), 895–911.

Puentedura, R. R. (2014). SAMR: A contextualized introduction.

https://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2014/10/12/SAMR_ContextualizedIntroduction.pdf

U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.). Census Reporter: Enid, Oklahoma area. https://censusreporter.org

U.S. News & World Report. (n.d.). Chisholm Middle School demographics. https://www.usnews.com

National Center for Education Statistics. (2025). School demographics and characteristics. https://nces.ed.gov

I used Grammarly to check my grammar.

I asked ChatGPT, "Did I meet the requirements for this blog?" and it responded that at the time, I had everything right beside references. It gave me suggestions on how to cite the references I was using properly.