Reflections 1

FALL 2004

With all that we have to contend with in our daily lives, we have, unfortunately, become quite complacent. Susan Garland cites middle class complacency to “drug related crimes and gang wars”. Although she feels this sums up the complacency felt towards the underclass of her study, I do not agree. As educators, I believe that we really do care about the students. I believe, wholeheartedly, that we truly want to make a positive difference in their lives by letting them know that we care about what happens to them. When we find ourselves caught up in a system that reflects the top-down power issue, as illuminated by Jim Cummins, it is not surprising that teachers become disenchanted. Disempowerment has a way of doing that to individuals. It is this top-down power system that disables both students and teachers alike. In retrospect, perhaps it is this same system that breeds complacency in an attempt to control the teachers.

 When teachers gather in our staff room during break times throughout the day, it is clear that many feel this way. In hoping that they can significantly impact upon the lives of their students, only to find themselves tied to a system that dictates the curriculum content to be delivered, it becomes the role of the teacher to become the mere deliverer of a service mandated by the powers that be. The role of the student becomes that of a receptacle, a most passive and boring role, where no real learning takes place. Jim Cummins refers to the current curriculum as being a “sanitized” one; so sanitized to the point that students seldom focus on issues (as in global issues like racism, environmental pollution, genetic engineering of food, global nuclear destruction) of chief importance to us all, but significantly to themselves as our future leaders.

I had considerably difficulty with Colin Lankshear’s article. I believe that school does play a role in shaping one’s consciousness, but cannot adequately state to what degree although it is the premise of this author that school is a major shaper of consciousness for all. Quite simply, for me, the question becomes … what is it that we wish to create?  

Students who sit and passively accept all that we impart? Students who are willing to become critical analyzers and challengers? How does one work towards promoting critical literacy by way of a top-down power system and still maintain one’s teaching position? How does one turn the student onto learning? By discovering “the validity and variety of their own experiences” as per Adrienne Rich, which is in keeping with Wayne O’Neil’s proper literacy (that which enables the reader to bring their knowledge and experience to bear on what is being read) as well as Jim Cummins Interactive/Experiential teaching model. One’s personal experience(s) is one’s connection to the real world. How do we convince our students that they have important things to say/share in their writing? In fostering an environment of honesty, trust and respect for the individual as a person, one can further enhance their feeling(s) of self worth. One has to believe in each child, for it is in this believing they can succeed that they may learn to begin to believe in themselves.

There appears to me to exist a contrasting connection between the naive consciousness of the young child first entering school (in the belief that they cannot significantly change their world) and the naive consciousness of the young educator beginner their new career (in the belief that they can significantly impact their students in a positive way). If “contemporary education is largely responsible for the prevalence of naive literacy within our society” as Colin Lankshear states, what is the top-down power system responsible for? I see this system as a means of turning a willing and able educator into one that may become critical, hardened, and, in some cases, cynical. Unfortunately, this particular system seems to abound in great numbers everywhere.

Wayne O’Neil talks about improper literacy (being able to follow words across a line of text, superficially understanding what one is reading) versus proper literacy (the reader bringing their knowledge and experience to bear on what is being read). It appears to me that our primary classrooms focus more on proper literacy in that students are encouraged to talk about their personal experiences, which also serves to validate them as individuals. As these same students enter into upper elementary and junior high grades, the model seems to gravitate more towards improper literacy. He further states that improper literacy begins with the teaching of reading (as in the relationships that are shown to exist between letters and sounds). I disagree with this particular connection in that I am currently using the Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS) program which focuses on phonemic awareness vis- -vis how sounds are made by the lips, mouth, teeth and tongue. For students who have significant difficulty learning to read and write, I believe that their phonemic awareness needs to be stimulated directly through experimentation and discovery as is utilized per this course. If these students cannot perceive the specific differences in the number and order of speech sounds in spoken patterns such as at, pat, tap and apt, the written representations of these sound patterns have no tie to reality. This belief is also supported/validated by the Speech/Language Pathologist assigned to our school.

The reading of Literacy and Social Class by J. L. Stuckey was an incredibly difficult read for me. So much so, in fact, that I did not feel overly literate, and yet I attempted to reflect upon this frustration in a positive light, in an attempt to try and understand what it must be like for students who struggle greatly, on a daily basis, with reading, writing and spelling. As citizens, the lives we make for ourselves are created as a function off-shoot of our job. Unfortunately, this also determines the class of individuals; hence, class and work are interrelated. My parents were of the working class poor system. They both had low paying jobs. As a result, we also relied on additional monetary support from the Department of Social Services. This served to shape what particular leisure activities we could engage in as well as the specific food and clothing items that were bought. In deciding to better myself by going off to University, I was able to advance socially towards the ranks of the middle class. As a result, my children have access to experiences and situations that would have been foreign to me. Literacy clearly has had an important part to play in this social advancement.

Individuals with the best education appear to get the better jobs. In this regard, literacy has become highly intertwined with labor. In my job as a Criteria teacher, working with severe LD students has further solidified my belief in the need for oral language literacy validation by way of using assistive technology (text reading software, text prediction software, voice recognition software) to overcome difficulty with the written component. In this way, through these assistive technology means, they are able to attain both access and success, despite their struggle with written literacy. Individuals who have a good handle on language (expressive and receptive) become empowered. “Language is learned in use”, as per F. Christie. There exists, therefore, a need for the learner to participate. In keeping with the cognitive growth, emotional growth and social growth of the individual student, what can be done to encourage contemporary classroom discourse in a top-down power system; discourse whereby the teacher seeks to create situations for the students to initiate and organize their learning experiences, working alongside students, at upper elementary and junior high levels? This, I believe, is a very valid question. As a result, I feel that I have now come full circle.

Reflections 2

FALL 2004

 

The key reflective component, for myself, pertaining to Discourses and Sociocultural Studies in Reading by James Paul Gee, is that literacy discourse is very much social innature. We have ways of (1) talking about people and things, (2) acting with people and things, and (3) ways of acting towards people and things, all of which are sociocultural responses. That was pretty straightforward. So far, so good. In addition, this speaks, to me, of the importance in learning to view the experiences of other people as their way of making sense/meaning of the happenings around them. This acceptance, of other views, further validates who they are.

I was most confused when Gee wrote that there is “no reading in general, at least none that leads to thought and action in the world” as I beg to differ. I am an avid reader of spirituality based material. As a result of this personal engagement, I find that I am relating to text outside the sociocultural norm, of which Gee speaks. I could, therefore, easily be seen as “deviant” in my beliefs in this area, given that they do not mimic those of the organized religious multitude. This continued reading at a personal level has led me to a change in thought patterns, which, also, has resulted in a change of action. To be quite frank, I still have no idea as to what Gee means.

It certainly takes much effort on the part of an author, for example, to be recognized in a certain way. In my reading of deeply spiritual and unorthodox material, I am actively engaged in recognizing the efforts each individual author has made; hence, my personal “configurations” or patterns are changing. Over the course of these spiritual journeying years, I have learned to become most reflective when engaged in the reading process.

With regards to The New Literacy Studies, I was, at first, very much interested in reading about the new capitalism, especially as it was of the same understanding that “reading, writing, knowledge, work, meaning and value” are important components with regards to the social turn away from the old capitalism (individual behavior and individual minds). In my continued reading of this article, I was quite shocked, as well as angry, to discover that so-called new capitalism leads to very poor pay, temporary (service type) work, total commitment to the business, very little social responsibility towards less-advantaged citizens and creation of cultural/class-based affiliations among wealthy individuals around the world. 

New capitalism, apparently, thinks very little about these increased social injustices. It seems to me that validation of people, as important individuals, is key to resolving the numerous social injustices of the world; something that does not exist in either old capitalism or new capitalism. As long as social injustices remain, there will always exist a “we versus them” mentality. As a planetary member, I feel all have to work towards eliminating social injustices. We can begin to tackle this daunting task by powerfully educating those that will become the future teachers and leaders; namely, our students.