One of the major things I will take with me from Morrell is not being afraid to push my students to achieve great things in the classroom. His discussion of community-based research projects was fascinating and he really had his students doing undergraduate and graduate level work as high schoolers. He says, “I believe that the work of the seminar stands on its own merit as an example of the kind of academic work student are capable of” (Morrell, p. 133). I couldn’t agree more. In terms of Freire, this type of work is “praxis: the action and reflection of men and women upon their world in order to transform it” (Freire, p. 60). Morrell also points out that “approximately ninety-five percent of the seminar participants either have been accepted to or are attending two- and four-year colleges and universities” (p. 123). I can only imagine the head start these students will have in college, not to mention how amazing a percentage that is. Essentially, what Morrell is helping these students do through community-research projects, is changing their future. They are actively transforming the system from one that would probably not have seen them in college to one where 95% of the students involved end up in college.
I also think his five unit plans for teaching popular culture were fantastic. I especially like that he has them viewing texts that represent their lives (even when he is making them read classic literature – Wright). I think it’s fantastic how he includes “In the Killing Fields of America” and Savage Inequalities. These are important “texts” and I think very pertinent to the lives of these students. All of these texts and the activities associated with them (particularly the Bigger Thomas trial), are clear examples of Freire’s problem posing education where, “the teacher presents the material to the students for their consideration, and re-considers her earlier considerations as the students express their own” (p. 62). I don’t know that I ever would have thought to teach my students these. I think one thing I can take away from Morrell is to get creative and think outside of the box when it comes to creating lesson/unit plans and choosing works to teach. Instead of being frustrated and saying “I wish I could teach this…” I can think hard and find a way to incorporate it. I think this is something that time and experience will help with, as well.
When I think back on this blog, there are four authors that really stick out in my head. Lisa Delpit, for one, is somebody I have read for previous courses. She has been very influential in my Master’s program and I will continue to read and reread her works and advice for support throughout my teaching career. Ernest Morrell and Paulo Freire will probably always been linked in my mind. Morrell’s practice is so driven by Freire’s philosophy and life’s work. I plan to finish Morrell’s Critical Literacy and Urban Youth and dive head-on into Freire’s entire Pedagogy of the Oppressed. I am fascinated to read more Freire. Lastly, Ed Hirsch, Jr. sticks out in my mind. I still firmly believe that what Hirsch is advocating for is misguided on the grounds of his list being made by and for the culture of power. In addition, I believe that this nation and its terminology and social practices are constantly changing, growing, and evolving. I do not think that what he wants will be able to keep up with the rapid rate of change (especially given the new technology and assumed growth of it) our nation goes through. I think what he advocates for is similar to national standards set by No Child Left Behind and I think it ignores local and community differences. I disagree when he says that multicultural education should not take the forefront. I believe I may be somewhat alone in my conviction against what Hirsch advocates for. I do not necessarily understand why this is, but I know that the name Hirsch will never leave my mind.
This blog has served me well as a place to mull over the issues and literature read through Literacy for Diverse Learners. It has been a place for meaning-making and connections between works. I think I have done some very careful analysis and digestion through this blogging process. That being said, I will not continue authoring this blog at the close of this class. However, I will take its purpose with me to my classroom someday. I know that blogs can serve an excellent space for students and teachers in the classroom. So, although this blog ends, another will continue.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Monday, July 20, 2009
Denial and Access
I think Moses argument is very well put together. One thing I am not sure about in his work is that he seems, in pushing so heavily for algebra, to deny other forces that are in play in the inequity of education. I think it is impossible to deny the effect that insufficient space and quality buildings have on a districts ability to provide a quality education. I also think there is a problem of expectations in many schools and students are not being pushed to excel, not only in mathematics, but in other subject areas as well. We can see this in Tatum’s (2008) work, when it is clear that Quincy has never been pushed to read. I think Moses is right when he asserts that a radical change in the education system and the teaching of culturally relevant material along with local efforts is necessary to lessen the class gap and bring about social justice and equity in education, I’m just not sure if I buy into the idea that algebra alone is the key. I think it is a piece, a large piece, of the puzzle.
Since I have several subject areas (certified special education, elementary education, and adolescent English), it is a little tricky for me to pin down instances of historic denial from my subject area. First of all, coming from a Special Education standpoint (and this might be a bit off-topic, but important), there is research that points to an over-representation of minority students in special education. The reasons for this are numerous (I actually wrote a significant paper on it), but to name a few: cultural bias in the testing systems, language barriers (ESL students), and behavioral expectations. Placements in special education tend to be highly restrictive, which means that once a student is referred, s/he is likely paced in special education, and likely kept there for the remainder of his/her education. If we look at “Even Sweet Gentle Larry?” The Continuing Significance of Race in Education, we can see the stigma, and/or the cultural barrier that results in students of color being described as behavioral problems. This means that they are more likely to be referred to special education on that grounding than white students are. To bring this back to the idea of denial of education, these students are being denied a general education in favor of a special education (which I am not denying is absolutely necessary and beneficial to many students). The problem is that the over-representation of minorities in special education suggests that many of these students do not really have learning disabilities. Many of these students are not receiving high expectations that would push them to reach their potential and are being needlessly tracked in the special education system, resulting in a mediocre (or worse) education and/or achievement of potential. They are being denied their right to achieve the very best they can. We can counter this by really looking at how we react to behavior. Is it something we are not providing (such as clear expectations for behavior) or the way we are reacting that is limiting a student from exhibiting “proper” behavior? Questions like these are important in addressing behavior and understanding how students are feeling before we write them off as behavioral problems and track them into the special education system.
As far as English is concerned, I intend to provide my students with the support necessary to help them make their own meanings of text. I want to read from a wealth of diverse perspectives, including authors, characters, plots, and messages from a variety of different cultures and ways of being. I want to see my students represented in the work they read and the writing they produce. I want my students to practice Morrell’s critical literacy in my classroom. I believe I can facilitate this type of thinking, but I cannot be in charge of it. My students need to be free to think for themselves regardless of how I think and I cannot push my beliefs/thoughts/ideas onto them. I think this is an important way to give my students access to literacy in ways that they may have traditionally been denied.
Since I have several subject areas (certified special education, elementary education, and adolescent English), it is a little tricky for me to pin down instances of historic denial from my subject area. First of all, coming from a Special Education standpoint (and this might be a bit off-topic, but important), there is research that points to an over-representation of minority students in special education. The reasons for this are numerous (I actually wrote a significant paper on it), but to name a few: cultural bias in the testing systems, language barriers (ESL students), and behavioral expectations. Placements in special education tend to be highly restrictive, which means that once a student is referred, s/he is likely paced in special education, and likely kept there for the remainder of his/her education. If we look at “Even Sweet Gentle Larry?” The Continuing Significance of Race in Education, we can see the stigma, and/or the cultural barrier that results in students of color being described as behavioral problems. This means that they are more likely to be referred to special education on that grounding than white students are. To bring this back to the idea of denial of education, these students are being denied a general education in favor of a special education (which I am not denying is absolutely necessary and beneficial to many students). The problem is that the over-representation of minorities in special education suggests that many of these students do not really have learning disabilities. Many of these students are not receiving high expectations that would push them to reach their potential and are being needlessly tracked in the special education system, resulting in a mediocre (or worse) education and/or achievement of potential. They are being denied their right to achieve the very best they can. We can counter this by really looking at how we react to behavior. Is it something we are not providing (such as clear expectations for behavior) or the way we are reacting that is limiting a student from exhibiting “proper” behavior? Questions like these are important in addressing behavior and understanding how students are feeling before we write them off as behavioral problems and track them into the special education system.
As far as English is concerned, I intend to provide my students with the support necessary to help them make their own meanings of text. I want to read from a wealth of diverse perspectives, including authors, characters, plots, and messages from a variety of different cultures and ways of being. I want to see my students represented in the work they read and the writing they produce. I want my students to practice Morrell’s critical literacy in my classroom. I believe I can facilitate this type of thinking, but I cannot be in charge of it. My students need to be free to think for themselves regardless of how I think and I cannot push my beliefs/thoughts/ideas onto them. I think this is an important way to give my students access to literacy in ways that they may have traditionally been denied.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Tatum and Mahiri
I believe that Tatum’s work meshes very well with “Street Scripts” by Mahiri. From his discussions with Quincy, I think it is evident that he was not being taught culturally relevant material or any material that he saw as practical in his own life. Furthermore, he was not being pushed to excel by his teachers and was kicked out of class because his teacher simply didn’t understand him or have the capacity to deal with his concerns. Although his outcome was not favorable (as Tatum states in the end), I think there is a glimpse of promise in what he gleaned from his visits with Tatum. A new door was opened to him; a door through which he saw himself and his life reflected in writing. He started to understand a little more about life and stated, talking about “Yo Little Brother…”, “help me through this confusion” (p. 171). He started to see how literature could help enhance his life and understand himself in terms of the rest of society. I think that is also what was happening in Mahiri’s article. Geoff’s video really helped him to situate himself in the power structure of his school. He was able to articulate (and extremely well) how his voice is not heard in dealings with authority in school. Mahiri articulates, “his perception and explanation of what happened was never really taken into account” (p. 29). In both cases, the students did not feel represented in school. I think these texts articulate how a multitude of various literature and means for expressing oneself can be powerful and utterly important tools for students to develop a love for learning and the environment that helps them learn. The rise of technology provides for so many new ways for students to express themselves and access information. It seems only right that with this should come a better ability to foster students’ interest and give them more channels for learning. Although I’m speaking and referencing young black students, the same can be said for all different types of learners.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Gatto and embedded literacy
I think that Gatto’s practice sounds similar to Carter’s practice for teaching from Ladson-Billings’ article. Both Gatto and Carter are structuring the teaching-learning process so that students can feel ownership over their products. They are also making sure to teach what is culturally relevant. They are making sure their students have hands-on opportunities to connect to subject material in a way that is meaningful to them.
Haneda says of literacy, “it is...important for teachers to reflect on what it means to help students to become literate and, on this basis, to create learning environments where students feel safe to express their ideas in a developmentally appropriate manner and to engage in critical discussion of substantive issues by using reading and writing as tools for thinking” (p. 343). I think Gatto’s instruction embodies what Haneda is describing here. Gatto’s students have many opportunities to “express their ideas,” they have ownership over almost everything they learn about, they constantly “engage in critical discussion,” and use “reading and writing as tools for thinking.” Not only do Gatto’s students have this type of experience with literacy instruction, but it permeates throughout all of the teaching-learning process in the classroom.
When we think about power, as we talked about in the neo-liberal, neo-conservative week and as mentioned in Lewis’ “Even Sweet, Gentle Larry?,” we realize that Gatto is giving her students the power to chose what they want to learn. She has students engaging in making charts about questions they have, and things they would like to know. She takes these questions and lets them drive what it is students will learn about during the unit. It is authentic, and students are gaining control over what they learn and how they learn it. Instead of the companies selling textbooks determining the outcome of student learning, the students and teachers collectively decide this.
I too plan to utilize this type of integrated and choice-driven approach in my classroom (and not just for literacy instruction). I believe that the teaching-learning process is not simply: the teacher gives the student information. I think it is more interchangeable, dynamic, and interaction driven than that. I believe that this interaction takes place between student-student, teacher-student, student-teacher, and even teacher-teacher. You would never tell a student that any one person has all the answers, would you?
In researching and implementing my action research project this past year, I came across an article by Karen Gallas titled “Art as Epistemology: Enabling Children to Know What They Know.” This article is largely about how different forms of art (which reminds me of Ken Robinson’s talk from last week) can enable students to demonstrate their learning. Ironically, she too did a unit on butterflies with her students that incorporated science, the arts, technology, reading, and writing. To give one example of using art to engage students in the teaching-learning process in her article is that of a Spanish-speaking student named Juan. He had a very hard time speaking English and so could not demonstrate to his teacher what he knew. Fortunately, Gallas understood and realized the potential his artistic ability and love had for him to explain his interest, learning, and knowledge. She would have him draw pictures to demonstrate these things, as well as to find a way to help him learn more English vocabulary. In another case, a student who had trouble sitting still and paying attention spontaneously reenacted, in an interpretive dance, the different life stages he had observed in the butterflies. I feel this type of teaching also lends itself to Gatto’s approach.
I want to give my students as many choices as I can to respond to, interact with, and internalize the knowledge they gain in the teaching-learning process. I believe Gatto has outlined a very effective way of doing this and I think art-integration can be very successfully tied to this type of integrative, imaginative, and empowering way to design curriculum.
Haneda says of literacy, “it is...important for teachers to reflect on what it means to help students to become literate and, on this basis, to create learning environments where students feel safe to express their ideas in a developmentally appropriate manner and to engage in critical discussion of substantive issues by using reading and writing as tools for thinking” (p. 343). I think Gatto’s instruction embodies what Haneda is describing here. Gatto’s students have many opportunities to “express their ideas,” they have ownership over almost everything they learn about, they constantly “engage in critical discussion,” and use “reading and writing as tools for thinking.” Not only do Gatto’s students have this type of experience with literacy instruction, but it permeates throughout all of the teaching-learning process in the classroom.
When we think about power, as we talked about in the neo-liberal, neo-conservative week and as mentioned in Lewis’ “Even Sweet, Gentle Larry?,” we realize that Gatto is giving her students the power to chose what they want to learn. She has students engaging in making charts about questions they have, and things they would like to know. She takes these questions and lets them drive what it is students will learn about during the unit. It is authentic, and students are gaining control over what they learn and how they learn it. Instead of the companies selling textbooks determining the outcome of student learning, the students and teachers collectively decide this.
I too plan to utilize this type of integrated and choice-driven approach in my classroom (and not just for literacy instruction). I believe that the teaching-learning process is not simply: the teacher gives the student information. I think it is more interchangeable, dynamic, and interaction driven than that. I believe that this interaction takes place between student-student, teacher-student, student-teacher, and even teacher-teacher. You would never tell a student that any one person has all the answers, would you?
In researching and implementing my action research project this past year, I came across an article by Karen Gallas titled “Art as Epistemology: Enabling Children to Know What They Know.” This article is largely about how different forms of art (which reminds me of Ken Robinson’s talk from last week) can enable students to demonstrate their learning. Ironically, she too did a unit on butterflies with her students that incorporated science, the arts, technology, reading, and writing. To give one example of using art to engage students in the teaching-learning process in her article is that of a Spanish-speaking student named Juan. He had a very hard time speaking English and so could not demonstrate to his teacher what he knew. Fortunately, Gallas understood and realized the potential his artistic ability and love had for him to explain his interest, learning, and knowledge. She would have him draw pictures to demonstrate these things, as well as to find a way to help him learn more English vocabulary. In another case, a student who had trouble sitting still and paying attention spontaneously reenacted, in an interpretive dance, the different life stages he had observed in the butterflies. I feel this type of teaching also lends itself to Gatto’s approach.
I want to give my students as many choices as I can to respond to, interact with, and internalize the knowledge they gain in the teaching-learning process. I believe Gatto has outlined a very effective way of doing this and I think art-integration can be very successfully tied to this type of integrative, imaginative, and empowering way to design curriculum.
Monday, June 22, 2009
This is tough
I believe that I have seen my students learn. I believe I have seen “a-ha” moments. The struggle I have is that this is my perception. I also think agreement with Dr. Tuck’s first statement depends on the context of the classroom. When I worked in a 6:1:1 with nonverbal students on the Autism Spectrum in grades K-2, it was very difficult for me to know what they were learning. They did not speak the same language I did and often times, it would appear that they were catching onto something we tried to teach them, and then all the sudden, the evidence of understanding would disappear. Some days one of my students could match his colors and some days, he couldn’t. Now were these instances where he matched colors just coincidences? Did he always know how to match colors and just didn’t concentrate on me enough to demonstrate it? Did he know a lot more that I couldn’t find a way to bring out? Was I even teaching him colors or did he already know them? The learning of these students was harder to know about than say, the setting in Poughkeepsie Day School that I observed where eight grade students were highly skilled at verbalizing and articulating what they learned and how they learned it.
In terms of assessment, no, I don’t think assessment as we see it today is a clear indicator of what our students learn. I do not believe that state standardized tests are any indicator of what students have learned in school or how much they know. I agree with Carini when she says, “Describing requires that I not rush to judgment or conclude before I have looked” (2001, p. 163). I believe that all standardized testing does is squeeze children and their abilities into little boxes so that we can put a stamp on it and quickly judge it “before [we] have looked.” The same is true for curriculum and purchased tests. I remember having to administer tests out of a science book purchased in the 1980s in a classroom I student taught in. More than half my class got the same question wrong and I remember thinking, something is not right with that question if more than half my students got it wrong. I ended up giving everyone a point for it.
Luna (2002) points out, “unless we change the fundamental elements of our approach to assessment, such as the grading system, we cannot truly change our classroom practices to include a wider range of learning styles” (p. 603). I agree with this statement but I am flabbergasted at how to achieve such a huge change in the system that has been operating for so long. My immediate reaction is to think about portfolio assessment. That seems to be a different approach, but at the end of the day, teachers have to fill out little boxes on report cards that give a standard grade. It’s still smashing students learning into little boxes. Can we do what Carini suggests and describe student learning. Take time to mull it over, keep looking back at it and then coming up with descriptions rather than codes, numbers, and letters to assign meaning to it? How can we standardize a way to “transcribe what [we] have seen…reenact the gestures, seeking for words sufficiently apt to translate them, words that do not flatten meaning and intensity, but call them forth” (Carini, 2001, p. 164)? The bottom line is that the government will want and need to standardize whatever new form of assessment we come up with. Part of the idea of standards is to make sure that all students are being pushed to excel, that no student exists in a school that does not ask them to achieve of their ability. The government does not trust local communities and teachers to set the standards for their own children. How can this be rectified?
Personally, I tend to swing toward portfolio assessment, because then at least students are being viewed more wholly than as separate grades. Students also have choice when it comes to what they put in their portfolio for grading. They have more ownership over the process. In addition, I think students need choices about how they represent the knowledge they have learned. This is reflected in the case Luna (2002) describes about how Cary made a “three-dimensional ‘map’…of an essay she was writing about James Joyce’s The Dubliners” (p. 601). I plan on allowing my students creative options for reflection of and response to course topics so that they are not limited in the ways they share their learning and knowledge.
In terms of assessment, no, I don’t think assessment as we see it today is a clear indicator of what our students learn. I do not believe that state standardized tests are any indicator of what students have learned in school or how much they know. I agree with Carini when she says, “Describing requires that I not rush to judgment or conclude before I have looked” (2001, p. 163). I believe that all standardized testing does is squeeze children and their abilities into little boxes so that we can put a stamp on it and quickly judge it “before [we] have looked.” The same is true for curriculum and purchased tests. I remember having to administer tests out of a science book purchased in the 1980s in a classroom I student taught in. More than half my class got the same question wrong and I remember thinking, something is not right with that question if more than half my students got it wrong. I ended up giving everyone a point for it.
Luna (2002) points out, “unless we change the fundamental elements of our approach to assessment, such as the grading system, we cannot truly change our classroom practices to include a wider range of learning styles” (p. 603). I agree with this statement but I am flabbergasted at how to achieve such a huge change in the system that has been operating for so long. My immediate reaction is to think about portfolio assessment. That seems to be a different approach, but at the end of the day, teachers have to fill out little boxes on report cards that give a standard grade. It’s still smashing students learning into little boxes. Can we do what Carini suggests and describe student learning. Take time to mull it over, keep looking back at it and then coming up with descriptions rather than codes, numbers, and letters to assign meaning to it? How can we standardize a way to “transcribe what [we] have seen…reenact the gestures, seeking for words sufficiently apt to translate them, words that do not flatten meaning and intensity, but call them forth” (Carini, 2001, p. 164)? The bottom line is that the government will want and need to standardize whatever new form of assessment we come up with. Part of the idea of standards is to make sure that all students are being pushed to excel, that no student exists in a school that does not ask them to achieve of their ability. The government does not trust local communities and teachers to set the standards for their own children. How can this be rectified?
Personally, I tend to swing toward portfolio assessment, because then at least students are being viewed more wholly than as separate grades. Students also have choice when it comes to what they put in their portfolio for grading. They have more ownership over the process. In addition, I think students need choices about how they represent the knowledge they have learned. This is reflected in the case Luna (2002) describes about how Cary made a “three-dimensional ‘map’…of an essay she was writing about James Joyce’s The Dubliners” (p. 601). I plan on allowing my students creative options for reflection of and response to course topics so that they are not limited in the ways they share their learning and knowledge.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Attempts at Looking Up
Lipman asserts that “critically reading the media, popular culture, and texts in order to better read the world is a crucial aspect of critical consciousness and collective action” (p. 62). Apple presents a discussion about the Channel One, “for-profit television network” that mandates schools to guarantee “that their students will watch Channel One every day” (p. 42). This television channel has “mandatory advertisements” that sells students as a “captive audience to corporations” (p. 42). Brining this back to Lipman, one thing teachers can do to counteract this market strategy is to, essentially, teach against it. Teachers can use material like this to sprout critical analysis and conversation about the effects of this in their students. Teachers who have the critical thought to examine the underlying effects of this type of material can hold workshops during staff development days in order to teach other teachers how to teach against this material and inspire critical thought in their students. The same can be true for the literacy packages described by Irvine and Larson. Teachers can elicit discussion about how the “skills-based pedagogies…[constrain students] in what they are enabled to do with and through text” (p. 54). Even very young students can engage in a discussion about what it is like to hear a story and discuss it versus filling in worksheets and practicing phonemes that are not grounded in the content of the story. When asked, students know surprisingly more about their learning than policy makers recognize. Students can tell us when they “use reading and writing to access the world as meaning-making subjects” as opposed to “objects of instruction” (Irvine & Larson, p. 54). This type of “teaching against” will also help students “learn from and with each other and adults in the classroom” as is advocated by Osbourn (p. 174). What I am trying to demonstrate here, is that there are ways to use crappy materials as a means for creating discussion about and in effect, teaching culturally and developmentally relevant information and meaning-making.
In addition, I think teachers have an outstanding source of potential power in their Unions. Although Apple asserts, “teacher’s unions are relatively weak at a national level” (p. 61), there is undoubtedly strength in numbers. He also explains that “behind much of this conservative impulse is a clear distrust of teachers and an attack on both teachers’ claims to competence and especially on teachers’ unions” (p. 51). I am not sure, and perhaps I am jumping to conclusions here, but I wonder if this distrust is based on a perception of teachers’ unions being solely enacted to raise teacher salary. Lipman describes that change “will require social movements of communities, students, and educators to challenge the neoliberal education agenda and the larger neoliberal economic and social agenda and to pose alternatives grounded in social justice” (p. 63). Although I don’t think the unions are the sole place for this type of movement, but I do believe it could present a starting point. The number of teachers in unions across the nation is much larger than the power of the union would suggest. However, I believe that there are many teachers in this nation that share the standpoint on change being advocated for by the articles for this week’s discussions. I think teachers relatively agree that there needs to be a paradigm shift in the way we assess and teach our students. Clearly, what we do, does not work well. Clearly more needs to be done to help all our schools as we are a culturally diverse nation that is not reflected in curriculum and standards. I believe many teachers share these thoughts. I believe that combined, we could hold power and create a grassroots effort to raise money in order to match the “financial and organizational backing that stands behind the neoliberal, neoconservative, and authoritarian populist groups” (Apple, 2001, p. 61).
Although our voices as teachers count less and less in decisions about the students we educate, there is optimism and hope in our numbers as well in our daily actions. Raising our voices will arguably only help our concerns and collectively, we have more to offer than we do individually. Grassroots organizations, conferences, scholarship, commitment, and stubborn adherence to teaching that reflects social justice are weapons.
In addition, I think teachers have an outstanding source of potential power in their Unions. Although Apple asserts, “teacher’s unions are relatively weak at a national level” (p. 61), there is undoubtedly strength in numbers. He also explains that “behind much of this conservative impulse is a clear distrust of teachers and an attack on both teachers’ claims to competence and especially on teachers’ unions” (p. 51). I am not sure, and perhaps I am jumping to conclusions here, but I wonder if this distrust is based on a perception of teachers’ unions being solely enacted to raise teacher salary. Lipman describes that change “will require social movements of communities, students, and educators to challenge the neoliberal education agenda and the larger neoliberal economic and social agenda and to pose alternatives grounded in social justice” (p. 63). Although I don’t think the unions are the sole place for this type of movement, but I do believe it could present a starting point. The number of teachers in unions across the nation is much larger than the power of the union would suggest. However, I believe that there are many teachers in this nation that share the standpoint on change being advocated for by the articles for this week’s discussions. I think teachers relatively agree that there needs to be a paradigm shift in the way we assess and teach our students. Clearly, what we do, does not work well. Clearly more needs to be done to help all our schools as we are a culturally diverse nation that is not reflected in curriculum and standards. I believe many teachers share these thoughts. I believe that combined, we could hold power and create a grassroots effort to raise money in order to match the “financial and organizational backing that stands behind the neoliberal, neoconservative, and authoritarian populist groups” (Apple, 2001, p. 61).
Although our voices as teachers count less and less in decisions about the students we educate, there is optimism and hope in our numbers as well in our daily actions. Raising our voices will arguably only help our concerns and collectively, we have more to offer than we do individually. Grassroots organizations, conferences, scholarship, commitment, and stubborn adherence to teaching that reflects social justice are weapons.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Language Diversity
It is almost unfathomable to me that some people do value and respect second language learning. As somebody who so badly wants to learn how to speak other languages, I do not understand disrespect for any language and especially not for an ability to speak more than one language. I understand when people say that English is the prominent language in America and that students need to learn how to speak it, but I cannot imagine, as was the case with Native Americans in Lomawainma and McCarty, how people can shut down a whole other mode of expression for their students. This saddens me and makes me realize, like Stubbs explains, the “complex sociolinguistic factors [that] lead cumulatively to educational problems for a child” (p. 79).
Haneda’s point about not knowing what our students know out of the context of school is important to look at in light of these complexities. Yes, after reading this, we are aware of some complexities for students who are learning English and for students who know English, yet speak another language at home. How many complexities exist that we may not have read about? Can we ever really understand all of them? What happens outside of school that we cannot be aware of and how can we remedy this? There are so many questions that arise from this. I guess what I am taking away is the fact that it is important to look into my students lives in order to dig deep enough to glean more of an insight on what they do know. As is the case with Baker’s trilingualism concept and Stubbs’ discussion about the different appropriateness of language styles in different contexts, students are using languages in many ways, for many reasons, and in different contexts. These will more often than not, fail to converge into a neat little package that we can stamp literate or illiterate on. We have to combine all the different literacies our students possess and strengthen these together. We have to throw the unfounded notion that there are primitive languages (Baggs and Stubbs) out the window. We have to realize that all forms of communication are valued, serve a purpose to a group of people we may or may not be a part of, and are complex. I think more often than not, a failure to do these things results in our students educational difficulties. It is not our students that fail, it is we who fail our students when it comes to multiple literacies. This is an area that needs much work in our education, but I think, as is evidenced by the rise in ESL and ELL programs, this issue might be ripe for change.
Haneda’s point about not knowing what our students know out of the context of school is important to look at in light of these complexities. Yes, after reading this, we are aware of some complexities for students who are learning English and for students who know English, yet speak another language at home. How many complexities exist that we may not have read about? Can we ever really understand all of them? What happens outside of school that we cannot be aware of and how can we remedy this? There are so many questions that arise from this. I guess what I am taking away is the fact that it is important to look into my students lives in order to dig deep enough to glean more of an insight on what they do know. As is the case with Baker’s trilingualism concept and Stubbs’ discussion about the different appropriateness of language styles in different contexts, students are using languages in many ways, for many reasons, and in different contexts. These will more often than not, fail to converge into a neat little package that we can stamp literate or illiterate on. We have to combine all the different literacies our students possess and strengthen these together. We have to throw the unfounded notion that there are primitive languages (Baggs and Stubbs) out the window. We have to realize that all forms of communication are valued, serve a purpose to a group of people we may or may not be a part of, and are complex. I think more often than not, a failure to do these things results in our students educational difficulties. It is not our students that fail, it is we who fail our students when it comes to multiple literacies. This is an area that needs much work in our education, but I think, as is evidenced by the rise in ESL and ELL programs, this issue might be ripe for change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
