To be… literate or not to be… literate!
If literacy is tied to economics and class, it seems obvious that to be literate means belonging to the upper class and not to be literate means belonging to the underclass. If acquiring literacy were the only condition then why can’t the underclass get out? All they have to do is learn to read and write and everything will take care of itself. Not so, says Paolo Freire, who distinguishes between critical literacy and naïve literacy. His distinction helps me to see the vicious cycle that the marginalized members of our society are caught in. For example, it is no wonder that the underclass can’t get out of their social class when schools, as Freire suggests, impose naïve literate views on them. These are views that paint a gloomy picture, one that promises no escape and offers only hopelessness. What schools should be doing is promoting critical literacy, so that students can relate what’s happening in society to what’s happening within themselves. This view concurs with what Mills calls “sociological imagination”. When we can ask Why am I in this predicament? How did I get here? and What forces have not afforded me opportunities to get out? we can make sense of what’s happening and take control of our lives.
To be literate is more than having acquired the skill to read (decode words) and write (spell correctly). This alone doesn’t afford the most important element of literacy and that is the ability to read the world and make sense of it. But when practices and conceptions of reading and writing reflect only the interests of the upper class, the underclass become helpless and at best can only try to adapt and when they don’t they are blamed for not caring enough or for being lazy. Discussions about why some people fail to rise above the unfortunate conditions in which they find themselves almost always end up with some people who blame the victims and others who feel sorry for them. But, neither of these opinions help the problem. They just perpetuate it. When it comes to education, I think it’s important to discuss solutions rather than simply attempt to diagnose the problem. I see this happen all the time when teachers and administrators are trying to determine why Franco can’t seem to earn his high school credits. They inevitably list a whole slew of causes and sometimes symptoms, but hardly ever solutions. I don’t know all the possible solutions, but I do know that I’m frustrated with the school system taking the easy way out. I think the answer lies in making students, like Franco, part of the process of finding a solution. Helping him become critically literate, by promoting sociological imagination will allow Franco to understand the world and his place in it. He will make the necessary adjustments and adapt or assimilate on his own terms. But just like a painter who in the absence of a silk canvas, uses the sidewalk to paint his masterpiece, Franco, once he becomes critically literate, can ‘get into’ mainstream society, one way or another.
It becomes incumbent upon us, as educators, to establish conditions that will include the subordinate group. This suggests that we promote critical literacy in schools, so that ALL students in our classes are given a voice and see themselves in the texts that they use. When we make knowledge relevant to them they become part of the equation, for when it is irrelevant to their lives it remains phony and awry. My annoyance is further exasperated by the counterfeit literates that walk the halls of many educational institutions proclaiming to educate young minds! These are the ones who are certain that they possess the absolute truth and are called to impart this upon the empty vessels who sit in the rows of desks before them everyday. By this, I mean those who O’Neil refers to as improperly literate. They are the ones who are reduced to career inspired, complacent, conformists, and graceful livers who believe they are in control of themselves and their environment, but are the furthest from being properly literate of all. In order to help our students become properly literate we must ensure that they are able to connect their knowledge and experience to the events of every new day. Language is the vehicle by which we become ‘free’ to engage in the world in which we live. Using language effectively is power. The power of language allows us to be able to recognize and articulate the connections we make with the world and it affords us the freedom to ‘be’ in the world. Being consciously in the world empowers us and motivates us to engage in social action. By using language, all students, the marginalized and the mainstream, have the power to act on and even change their reality.
Yet, I remain uncertain that saying it makes it so! As Freire reminds us, “…all teaching is intrinsically political” and as such cannot be void of bias and therefore is never neutral. Luke tell us that literacy teaching is “a form of modern cultural capital”. Therefore, the question remains, “WHICH literacies do we address? HOW do we distribute knowledge? WHO gets access? The answers to these questions remain ambiguous …about this I am certain!
Friday, February 26, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Written Response for Workshop 1
Teaching…the never-ending journey
Reading the articles written by Andrew Manning and Walter MacGinitie has allowed me to reflect on teaching on a level that is so often clouded by the “demands of the job”. Relentlessly, as educators, we strive for perfection and certainty by ensuring that we cover the curriculum, prepare kids to successfully write the final exam, and report marks accurately. In so doing, we fail to see the real teaching quest, which is the quest for learning.
This quest for learning needs to be driven by the learner’s curiosity. When curriculum is created by anyone other than the students themselves, it is imposing upon them someone else’s truth. When we interact with curriculum as conversation, we remove the barriers that prevent learning from happening. This makes sense to me on many levels, in my role as coordinator of secondary programs. The conversations I have with my colleagues deal with many topics…we talk about curriculum expectations mandated by the ministry of education; we talk about assessing and evaluating the degree to which those expectations are achieved; we talk about how we will report the level of achievement; and we talk about what we will use to help us determine the accuracy of this reporting. These conversations almost always take place in the absence of the very subject we are talking about…our students. Although, their involvement in directing their own learning would seem to be the most natural approach, since as Manning says “no one learns by asking someone else’s inquiry question”, our students are rarely involved in the negotiation of their own learning..
What seems to drive the current school system to want to ‘ask someone else’s inquiry question’ for them is that those who have the authority are ‘certain’ that they have the ‘absolute knowledge’ and, as MacGinitie highlights in his article, “we inflict our certainties on students in many ways”. Most evident to me is that, as educators, we think that the grades we give students are absolutely accurate because of the electronic marks reporting system we use, the judgment we impose on their work and the approach we use to impart knowledge. This ‘certitude’ limits student learning because, and I agree with MacGinitie, in order for learning to occur there needs to be a degree of uncertainty, “for only an uncertain person can learn; only an uncertain person can show how learning is done. That is the power of uncertainty.”
Presently, our system level conversations at my board have converged on self-directed learning, as a possible approach for students to earn credits. This approach depends on conversation, conversation that is lead by students in regards to their learning. It requires students to be curious, ask ‘what if…’ questions, engage in problem solving and, most importantly, have a voice in co-constructing their curriculum. Affording students the opportunity to have a voice is giving students permission to learn. And since the process of learning involves action, reflection, and reflexivity, it seems only natural for us to provide students with opportunities to answer their own questions. In doing so, we truly believe that curriculum is conversation…and that the conversation needs to continue if we hope to make learning available to everyone!
Reading the articles written by Andrew Manning and Walter MacGinitie has allowed me to reflect on teaching on a level that is so often clouded by the “demands of the job”. Relentlessly, as educators, we strive for perfection and certainty by ensuring that we cover the curriculum, prepare kids to successfully write the final exam, and report marks accurately. In so doing, we fail to see the real teaching quest, which is the quest for learning.
This quest for learning needs to be driven by the learner’s curiosity. When curriculum is created by anyone other than the students themselves, it is imposing upon them someone else’s truth. When we interact with curriculum as conversation, we remove the barriers that prevent learning from happening. This makes sense to me on many levels, in my role as coordinator of secondary programs. The conversations I have with my colleagues deal with many topics…we talk about curriculum expectations mandated by the ministry of education; we talk about assessing and evaluating the degree to which those expectations are achieved; we talk about how we will report the level of achievement; and we talk about what we will use to help us determine the accuracy of this reporting. These conversations almost always take place in the absence of the very subject we are talking about…our students. Although, their involvement in directing their own learning would seem to be the most natural approach, since as Manning says “no one learns by asking someone else’s inquiry question”, our students are rarely involved in the negotiation of their own learning..
What seems to drive the current school system to want to ‘ask someone else’s inquiry question’ for them is that those who have the authority are ‘certain’ that they have the ‘absolute knowledge’ and, as MacGinitie highlights in his article, “we inflict our certainties on students in many ways”. Most evident to me is that, as educators, we think that the grades we give students are absolutely accurate because of the electronic marks reporting system we use, the judgment we impose on their work and the approach we use to impart knowledge. This ‘certitude’ limits student learning because, and I agree with MacGinitie, in order for learning to occur there needs to be a degree of uncertainty, “for only an uncertain person can learn; only an uncertain person can show how learning is done. That is the power of uncertainty.”
Presently, our system level conversations at my board have converged on self-directed learning, as a possible approach for students to earn credits. This approach depends on conversation, conversation that is lead by students in regards to their learning. It requires students to be curious, ask ‘what if…’ questions, engage in problem solving and, most importantly, have a voice in co-constructing their curriculum. Affording students the opportunity to have a voice is giving students permission to learn. And since the process of learning involves action, reflection, and reflexivity, it seems only natural for us to provide students with opportunities to answer their own questions. In doing so, we truly believe that curriculum is conversation…and that the conversation needs to continue if we hope to make learning available to everyone!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
