When Dr. Hatt asked the youth to define smartness they were quick to define it as book smarts vs. street smarts.
Book smarts were directly connected to the symbols mentioned previously but street smarts were often defined as a direct counter to book smarts or the dominant discourse of smartness.
The following include some of the ways the youth defined street smarts:
"Able to not go into bankruptcy I guess... and stay out of trouble. Just able to survive on the street without getting into trouble, and keeping a home for yourself and everything going," Calveda.
"If you can make ends meet, whether you're educated or not... like in school I was a book smart type person, but when I dropped out I had to learn the street smarts part of it. And yeah, I was 19 years old, 20 years old, and I had $30,000 and I could do anything I wanted with it, but yet it was illegal," Nickili.
"I believe I have some street smarts. Like I've never been arrested for drugs... I know not to walk around here with all these drugs on me broadcasting it. I mean, that would be stupid... I know when trouble should occur that I need to leave, and get out of that situation, or I have to handle my business, or not handle my business," Quinn.
"Street smarts were connected with being able to maneuver through the structures in their lives such as poverty, the police, street culture, and abusive 'others,'" Dr. Hatt said. "This distinction is key because street smarts stress agency in countering social structures or obstacles whereas, for many of the students, book smarts represented those structures or obstacles, particularly in their efforts of passing the GED or acquiring 'papers.'"
This begs the question, why is teaching (and, in turn, learning) so fragmented? Can't we figure out a way how to teach the young in a more inclusive manner? One that doesn't force them to choose between books and the street? But that's a topic for another time.
