Finn: "Literacy with an Attitude"

Finn: Literacy with an Attitude: Educating Working-Class Children in Their Own Self-Interest

     In "Literacy with an Attitude: Educating Working-Class Children in Their Own Self-Interest," Finn asserts that education should focus on a hegemonic literacy--a literacy with an attitude--that allows impoverished and middle-class students to comprehend and maintain their civic and societal rights. In the excerpt, Finn mentions several academics who have embarked on an pedagogical journey to ensure the right to literacy with an attitude. In addition to Paolo Freire, Finn includes Shirley Brice Heath and John Ogbu. Greatly influenced by Finn's presentation of Freire who was a Brazilian educator and influential theorist, I was inclined to investigate the aforementioned theorists. Who are they? How have they influenced literacy and social ideology? Does their research provide further insight into Finn's "Literacy with an Attitude" or the additional writers covered in class? Equipped with inquiries, I took to the Internet to provide answers and supplemental resources for the class.

     A "transforming intellectual" (Finn, 156) or critic of social inequities, Shirley Brice Heath wrote Ways with Words: Language, Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms. The text is a study of children's use of language at school and at home in two communities in the Southeast. Heath's 'Roadville' is a white working-class community who livelihood is dependent on textile miles, while 'Trackton' is an African-American working community whose elders worked in agriculture and the current generation works in the mills. Functioning as an ethnographer and social historian, Heath reveals the cultural differences of the divergent communities, and the nature of language development with its effect on social class. Stunning the academic world with her findings, Heath concluded that the African-American youth demonstrated a more proficient grasp on language than their white counterparts. Due to their home socialization and 'culture,' African-American children were accustomed to talking in "planful" language--if I want this to happen, I must say this! Remind anyone of Delpit's explicit directives Thus, avoid "veiled commands" (Delpit, 34) in order to get what you want! For further information on Shirley Brice Heath and her examination of linguistic skills, please refer to the following interview: http://sparkaction.org/content/arts-are-basic-achievement-interview-shirl.
　
     Like Freire and Heath, Dr. John Ogbu contributed to education with his cultural-ecological theory, or an elucidation of low minority group achievement in education due to a cultural mismatch. Echoing Johnson's proverbial 'elephant' in the room of "the existence of privilege and the lopsided distribution of power that keeps it going" (Johnson, 15) in 'Privilege, Power, and Difference, Ogbu's cultural mismatch suggests that minority students experience low academic achievement because some aspects of their cultures—language, dialect, perception of time and space, attitude toward collectivism and individualism—do not match the school culture. This mismatch puts them at a disadvantage compared to students who share cultural background with school teachers, text books authors, and standardized test writers. In order to connect Ogbu to Finn, please view the following YouTube video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AonVz9XFk8, on The U.S. Black/White Test-Score Gap.

 

The cartoon video is lengthy, however, it provides an interesting perspective on the achievement gap that is based upon race--a gap that effects school and later the workplace (think Finn!). Furthermore, Ogbu distinguished voluntary and involuntary minorities. Voluntary minorities are those who come to a society of their own choice through immigration; involuntary minorities are those who come to a society through enslavement, conquest, or colonization. Does this tie into Johnson's power and privilege, and Delpit's "culture of power" (24)? I would say yes!　

     More theory for those "out there in the trenches" (Finn, 7)! Nevertheless, I leave you with Finn's question: "How would it work in my classroom" (Finn, 7)? Hope the resources help!

Johnson: "Privilege, Power, and Difference" (Take 2)

Johnson: “Privilege, Power, and Difference”

Following last evening’s class discussion, I reevaluated my posting for Johnson’s “Privilege, Power, and Difference,” and adjusted my reactionary thoughts accordingly.

The aim of Johnson’s “Privilege, Power, and Difference” is to confront social issues in America that involve “gender and race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, social class” (Johnson, p. vii).  Johnson maintains that all individuals in our society are responsible for inequities in power.  It is not only the white, male, heterosexual, middle-class professional who partake in the societal advantage and subsequent supremacy.  All of us are part of the problem (Johnson, p. vii, emphasis mine).  Due to the universal proliferation of the imbalance, Johnson proposes the first steps we can take to tackle and resolve these issues.  Nevertheless, the approach at resolution may be laden with culpability or blameworthiness.  Johnson (2001) elucidates:

When most people read the phrase “how we as individuals are connected to it,’ they think they’re about to be told they’ve done something wrong, that blame and guilt aren’t far behind, especially if they are white or male or heterosexual or of a privileged class (viii).

Furthermore, this self-protective retort has perpetuated “our current paralysis by preventing each of us from taking the steps required becom[ing] part of the solution” (Johnson, p. viii).  So to use a 1960′s cliché…if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem.

            In reflecting upon the readings of Johnson and Delpit, I question my role as a self-proclaimed liberal educator.  Driven by the “best intentions” (Delpit, p. 28), I too am riddled by the guilt of being a member of “the culture of power” (Delpit, p. 24)—a personal cogitation which is antithetical to Johnson’s guidance to rise above the quintessential ‘blame game.’  While reading, I highlighted the statements: Many liberal educators hold that the primary goal of education is for children to be autonomous, to develop fully who they are in the classroom setting without having arbitrary, outside standards forced upon them.  This is a very reasonable goal for people whose children are already participants in the culture of power and who have already internalized its codes (Delpit, p. 28).  So, where does this leave me?

            According to Johnson, the aforementioned social issues are based upon the existence of privilege, and the use or misuse of power.  Privilege is an advantage; privilege is an inherent state of inequality.  In order to rectify the existing disproportion, Johnson suggests:

…if we dispense with the words [including racism, white, white racism] we make it impossible to talk about what’s really going on and what it has to do with us.  And if we can’t do that, then we can’t see what the problems are or how we might make ourselves part of the solution to them (2).

Thus only with a collaborative effort can these issues be resolved, and they must brought about in the open.  We must set aside all sentiments of blame, guilt, shame, and association to focus on our society and its dire need of change.  I pose this thought, and welcome feedback:  Johnson maintains that the only way to bring about positive social changes is to openly confront and discuss issues of power and privilege?  What can one person do to initiate or facilitate change?

            In closing, I have come across two individuals who are responsible getting the ball rolling and shedding light on these issues.  Thomas Norman DeWolf and Katrina Browne collaboratively worked to complete the novel, Inheriting the Trade, and the film, Traces of the Trade: A Story from the Deep North.

In the summer of 2001, Katrina Browne led nine distant family members on their own triangular passage as she made a documentary film (Traces of the Trade: A Story from the Deep North) about their DeWolf ancestors, the largest slave-trading dynasty in early America—who transported 10,000 Africans to America and the Caribbean between 1769 and 1820. DeWolf, one of Browne's cousins, traces the journey in this soul-searching memoir, beginning in Bristol, R.I., the hub of the late–18th-century trade, and continuing to Ghana, Cuba and back to New England. DeWolf's account gains immediacy as he reports these presentations and the ensuing group discussions, along with their personal struggles to come to terms with an ignominious family history and his own sharp learning curve. DeWolf promotes conversation about truth of the past and its impact on the present (http://www.amazon.com/Inheriting-Trade-Northern-Confronts-Slave-Trading/dp/0807072818). 

In addition, here is a video of DeWolf at Columbia College in Chicago, explaining Authentic Relationships with "The Other".  Here is the link:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_y-5UTZbdE&feature=related.

Do DeWolf and Browne start the dialogue?  Can one person initiate the necessary change to ensure social justice?

Delpit: "The Silenced Dialogue: Power and Pedagogy in Educating Other People's Children"

Morgan Buonanno

EDC 552:  Social & Cultural Contexts of Schooling

Dr. Bogad

Fall 2011

Delpit:  “The Silenced Dialogue: Power and Pedagogy in Educating Other People’s Children”

            Lisa Delpit’s “The Silenced Dialogue:  Power and Pedagogy in Educating Other People’s Children” tackles the “skills versus process approaches” (23) to writing instruction, and elucidates that these pedagogical methodologies directly affect students who do not belong to “the culture of power” (24).

            According to Delpit, “the culture of power” in our educational system is comprised of “children from middle-class homes tend to do better in school than those from non- middle-class homes because the culture of the school is based on the culture of the school is based on the culture of the upper and middle classes—of those in power” (25).  These students’ success in school is associated with the inherited acquisition of ‘cultural capital,’ or discursive patterns and values that are reflected in linguistic forms, communicative strategies, and presentation of self.  Furthermore, students who do not possess the advantageous gains of the cultural privilege, predominantly students who are minorities or of an impoverished social class, tend to struggle in school because they must learn implicit language codes and ideological systems.  For Delpit, “when implicit codes are attempted across cultures, communication frequently breaks down” (25).  Thus, students who are not privy to “the culture of power” are being held accountable in the classroom for discerning a set of rules that is nonexistent, and absent from their cultural milieu.  I pose the questions:  Is this just?  Would you test a third grader on Calculus?  Would you expect a Kindergartener to write a five-paragraph essay?  No!  How can we assess students on a skill set that they do not possess?

            Delpit explains that liberal teachers hold “beliefs include striving for a society based upon maximum individual freedom and autonomy” (26); nevertheless, I tentatively consider myself a liberal teacher following Delpit’s definition.  Burdened by the power struggle outlined by Delpit, I am left with an unsettling feeling that I am functioning like a power broker rather than a teacher.  For Delpit, many of these teachers (myself included) have been advocating the “process approach” to teaching literacy.  I have a copy of Daniels and Zemelman’s Subjects Matter:  Every Teacher’s Guide to Content-Area Reading on my desk as I type.  I am searching for a pre-reading activity prior to beginning “The Most Dangerous Game” with my freshmen—an activity that is student-centered and advocates indirect instruction.  Nevertheless, Delpit claims that this technique may be effective with students who are included in the “culture of power,” yet marginalized students are “cheated” (32).  In the article, “many people of color” (whom I teach everyday), for instance, “expect an authority figure to act with authority” (35).  Does it mean that I am not doing by job by encouraging student-centered learning activities, and shirking my responsibilities due to the fact that I do not use ‘chalk and talk’ all the time?

            Pondering the aforementioned question, I took to the Internet for some research on the benefits of direct instruction vs. indirect instruction.  Please see the following link: http://nichcy.org/research/ee/learning-strategies.  According to the website and accompanying article, “Even better, this method of instruction is appropriate and effective for students who have disabilities, as well as for those who do not. That’s right, all students can benefit from understanding the strategies that good learners use. What’s more, a skillful teacher can play a critical part in guiding students to use strategies until their use becomes an automatic part of each student’s repertoire.”  All students includes all students—those who are part of the dominant culture and those who are not.

            Despite my questioning of Delpit’s explanation of “liberal” and the debate over approaches to instruction, I do concur with Delpit’s admissions that students who are not part of what she considers excluded from “the culture of power…need to establish their own voices…and to coach those voices to produce notes that will be heard clearly in the larger society” (46).  According to Delpit, I possess “the power of culture” (Sigh!), yet I am roused to take the initiative of “get[ting] all the issues on the table in order to initiate true dialogue” (46).  This must be done.  As an educator, I take responsible for my teaching, and aim to provide for all students.  With trepidation and backed with data on instructional approaches, I will begin to discuss the “power realities in this country” (46).  The verdict is still out if this acknowledgement with aid in lessening the power-based societal gap, but I am willing to begin the dialogue.

Introduction

Hi, my name is Morgan.  I am teacher at Saint Raphael Academy in Pawtucket.  Currently, I teach English to juniors and freshmen.  In order to further my studies, I enrolled in the ASTL Program at RIC in order to achieve teacher certification (a long, yet successful fight with the Department of Education), and to further solidify my pedagogical approach to teaching.  In my spare time, I love to read; hence, the fact that I am English teacher!  In addition, I am training to run a marathon for my 30th birthday--14 months and counting!  I also enjoy spending time with my family and friends.