Let us blog.
On pages nine and ten, Macedo speaks against the tongue tying/mind-tying of America, stating that it is, “incapable of producing educators and leaders who can rethink what it means to prepare students to enter the...multicultural world of the 21st century” (1991, p. 9-10). This statement reminded me of Noddings who said, “one universal need that we should take seriously is the need to learn standard English” (2013, p. 110). Are Macedo and Noddings in opposition with regard to English learning, or are the above statements two sides of the same coin?
P.S. - To be honest, I almost chose Macedo over Pinar, because of the language aspect. To be honest, I was most intrigued by Macedo’s mention of the Boston /r/.
I’ll blog on Macedo’s other articles later tonight.
There is so much to talk about after reading Macedo. I’ll practice being concise, however, and mention some of the special vocabulary he uses to characterize the instrumentalist approach to literacy. So far, I have stupidification, literacy for the poor, mindless and meaningless drills, gobbledygook (my favorite), psycho-babble, anesthetization of the mind, and dilettantism. All of these mixed together produce, according to Macedo, the semiliterate or what Ortega y Gasset calls “a learned ignoramus” (1993, p. 192) One of 21 questions that I have after reading Macedo, however, is the following: Just what exactly enables young David Spritzler to side-step the indoctrination that his teachers and administrators were not able to avoid? Is it simply that a 12-year old is less anesthetized, has less invested in the indoctrination, and is not yet privileged?
ReplyDeleteP.S.
Was anyone else reminded of the image of the three monkeys depicting “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” while reading the dialogue between Macedo and Zinn? The mention of Ellison’s Invisible Man - a book that literally changed the course of my education in high school - reminded me of this three-part image and how a classless society seemed feasible in my mind, until…[insert countless traumatic cases of discrimination here].
Reginald,
DeleteI really found the dialogue between Macedo and Zinn interesting. I have never read the Invisible Man but I definitely want to! As I was reading through I thought about my childhood, I went to elementary school in the DFW area and our school we pretty diverse... however I never remember learning anything that suggest that America still had classes.. On page 125 Macdeo and Zinn both describe their schooling experiences as seeing everyne is equal in terms of class... you might know there are people richer than you but you don't think of it much. Well I would say were were extremely middle class growing up, and now I would say I would qualify in the upper-middle class (based off of income)... I think about what my kids have and get to do verses what I got to do (I never went hungry, but my parent never had extra money)... Once a few years ago my husband mentioned that our kids were so lucky, and I responded with something like, I know they have no idea what its like to be poor, and he said neither do you... I was offended and made some statement like yes I do at the end of the month maybe all we had to eat was a bake potato for dinner, he said you always ate, had electricity, and water (all of which he had done without many times in his childhood). I think as Macdeo put it "there are tow ways of knowing something: you know something superficially or you know something that hits you in your gut" (p. 122) is an extremely powerful statement. By a few years ago when this conversation took place, I knew about "classes" but I really had no gut knowing about what it means and how the "oppressed" can feel, I still do not fully know, but I would say that I do have more empathy.
YES!!! The truth is, we can’t all come from the poorest neighborhood nor from the wealthiest part of town. I often say to people, “I didn’t grow-up in the poorest part of town. I grew-up in the 2nd poorest part of town. We did not have much, but those poorer than us would have called us “upper-class”. It behooves me, as an educator, curricularist, linguist, to try to look through their poverty stained lenses. I am so glad that Macedo refers to Gee, who, if I recall well, gives great explanations of Discourse or ways of a community. I appreciate the way Gee defends those who come from a less-dominant (or subdominant) Discourse, pointing us to empathy in instruction and curriculum design. I wrote, “J.P. Gee!!” in the margin when I read, “I would argue that the shaming, humiliation, and colonization non-speakers of the dominant speakers of the dominant standard English feel has...more to do with the lack of readiness success...than the mechanical struggles these students face” (Macedo, 2000, p. 23). Here, is where I would insert Noddings’ discussion about parenting and whether or not all children are ready for academe.
DeleteIf I may be a bit candid, I admit that I was almost to the point of tears after, in a Tuesday night session in Proseminar, Dr. Craig Hill mentioned the book Tulsa Burning. I felt like I was the only one in the class who had never heard of the book. I don’t know that everyone had read the book -- I just knew that the guy from Tulsa (myself) was oblivious to the existence of the book. I felt surprised, embarrassed, angry, deceived -- like a semiliterate dilettante. To make matters worse, I worked at the local library, as a volunteer until age sixteen and then part time until age twenty-one. One would think that I would have shelved a copy or two in that time span. I later learned that most of my classmates were unaware of the Tulsa race riots of the 1920s. Was I (were we) subject to a city-wide hidden curriculum? Does anyone else know of other hidden curriculum agendas, perhaps in France (Hi, Emma!) or the Koreas (Hi, John!) or in Hawai’i (Hi, Mackinley)? Also, is there a correlation between greater curriculum integration and more cosmopolitan areas, as in Alana’s Dallas-Ft. Worth, and hidden curriculum and less cosmopolitan areas like Tulsa?
DeleteRegi & Alana- YES! ;)
DeleteAlana I marked that same statement about knowing. I also did not really know much about an existing class system, not anything remotely "ugly" in American history. I honestly feel like this is more than a city-wide hidden curriculum Regi; I think this is an example of how national pride influences the information that is readily distributed. Now I will qualify that statement by saying that I think things have changed or are changing now that we are able to "fact check" at the tap of a finger, however like I mentioned not too long ago, I was 21 years old before I ever knew of anything remotely "ugly" that the American government was responsible for. Sadly, the majority of the elementary level textbooks that are available these days still provide a very one-sided picture of history, which I do view as being a hidden curriculum (even though some publishing companies would vehemently disagree).
On the exact opposite side of that, I think Hawaii does an excellent job of teaching their history in schools. It is not taught simply as state history in one or two grade levels like many mainland states, but it is engrained in PK-12 as cultural education. It covers not just the Native Hawaiians, but the arrival of other Pacific Islanders, distinct groups of Asians, and many other groups of people who have ties to Hawaii & Hawaiian History. The best part is that it is very honest- it doesn't aim to make one group look better than another, or to highlight one group over another.
I feel like that is more along the lines of how it "should" be. What do you think?
Reginald, for many states in our country the subject of English Only classrooms was and has been of great debate. This article was written in the 1990’s, which reflects different levels of societal and educational “hot topics”. Although, I agree with Macedo’s comments that minority students that can’t speak English, should not be robbed of learning and critical thinking opportunities due their inability to understand the English language. But, I do think Macedo brings to light another facet of this issue that should be addressed, and that is the bigger picture of our failure within our schools to provide for not only 2nd language learners, but also those of poverty, and “others”.
ReplyDeleteHaving taught in California, with many 2nd language learners, I’ll agree that the accreditation programs did not proficiently prepare teachers, but I do take offense inferring I was incapable of rethinking what I needed to do to enable these students to be successful. I will save everyone the laundry list of things an educator can do to create a classroom community that values all cultures. With that being said, I wonder what are the best practices for those living in this nation to assimilate, or do we want different cultures to assimilate? Does assimilate have to mean a common culture? Do we want a nation of different cultures staying amongst themselves due to broad language and cultural differences? Cities like Chicago, Miami, and New York have areas within their cities that mirror those differences. Do those cities mirror what we intend from a democratic society?
Barbara,
DeleteThese are great questions... I think that within our democracy we should cherish diversity, and think of it as a positive vs. a negative. With that said I do believe that we should teach proper English, to both English as a first language as well as for those students with English as a second language. Within doing this though I think there would be a way to also maintain the child's culture and language of their home. I know I would love it if my own children were bilingual. When I taught high school, there was a Hispanic man, who actually taught English, he did several professional developments for us (Spanish was his first language)... he made a great point for me that has stuck with me for many years.... As educators we need to educate in any way or language possible... eventually when a ELL student develops their English then they will transmit all their other knowledge of math, science, history etc over to their new found "English" language. This really made me think in a different way and it has been something I have held onto for years.
Barbara and Alana,
DeleteI think you're both right. I think that many districts are struggling to feasibly offer appropriate resources to children who do not speak English as a first language and their families. Additionally, I think that there is a widespread prejudice against these families which reinforces this lack of support.
Is this difference in power deliberate so it keeps the majority in control? I'm not saying that a school district may promote this way of thinking, but could it be so ingrained in us that we don't even notice?
Barbara and Alana,
DeleteI think you're both right. I think that many districts are struggling to feasibly offer appropriate resources to children who do not speak English as a first language and their families. Additionally, I think that there is a widespread prejudice against these families which reinforces this lack of support.
Is this difference in power deliberate so it keeps the majority in control? I'm not saying that a school district may promote this way of thinking, but could it be so ingrained in us that we don't even notice?
Reginald, you asked if Macedo and Noddings were in opposition to one another in regards to English learning. I really don't think they are. In fact, I would even say that they would mostly agree. When Noddings makes this statement, I really think she knows that not being fluent in English can be a major hurdle for the oppressed in our society. By just knowing the primary language in America, that can be a big step that people do not have to later overcome.
ReplyDeleteShe is basically saying that if learning English is one of the basic skills we can teach our students, then it may be for their benefit when they are trying to pursue their interests, find work, and live a good life. If we fail to teach students English, then it may be difficult to work and live within society. All of this is not to say that Americans and immigrants to America should be forced to forego their native language in favor of English. Rather, in our schools, there should be space for multiple languages to be spoken. We should be learning about and celebrating the cultures from where our students come. In fact, having multiple languages spoken and many cultures represented is probably really beneficial to our society! What do you think?
Cacey, I couldn't agree more with what you said and how you said it. I believe Noddings was making her point about speaking English being important due to what society views as a discipline that should be taught in school, and if taught, should be spoken with correct usage outside of school. I also agree schools should be a place for all our cultures to assimilate and learn new customs and perspectives from one another. It makes us more understanding of our differences when students interact with others that share a greater majority of the same human traits and beliefs, than those few differences that are reflected within different cultures. For me, that is a reflection of a democracy. An acceptance and understanding of all its people.
ReplyDeleteI believe the reaction for many in regard to English Only instruction in the classrooms (especially in states where 1,000's come into the country illegally) is that public schools and hospitals that are already drained of resources and money, provide for all students. Many stand conflicted between the reality of the situation, and the voice inside our heads to do the right thing for all people.
Hi there! Cacey, Regi, Barbara- I am thoroughly enjoying catching up on this conversation! I agree with you completely, and as I was reading your thoughts I was thinking about a common phrase used in Hawaii among educators that addresses this concept at the instructional level... "English to teach, Pidgin to reach."
DeletePidgin is the local Hawaiian slang/dialect (that some have compared to Ebonics) that is very unconventional and certainly not standard in any way. People who have lived in Hawaii for any extended period of time typically pick up on it and will incorporate some mild Pidgin into their daily language, but the majority of students attending public school in the islands speak such thick Pidgin that most of "us" wouldn't be able to understand a great deal of what they said. There is no doubt that these kiddos will benefit from learning Standard English to be able to communicate efficiently and effectively with anyone outside of their "network" or community, however we also know that in order to establish a relationship, build trust, show respect, and truly "reach" the kids, the use of Pidgin is highly effective. Some will argue that it is the only way to accomplish those affective goals of teaching.
So, maybe there is a balance and value to both?
Hi, all! Well, I was going to respond to Barbara, then Casey, but I think one post will suffice here. Barbara, I was also taken aback when Macedo writes, “I am increasingly convinced that the U.S. educational system is not a failure. The failure that it generates represents its ultimate victory to the extent that large groups of people, including the so-called minorities, were never intended to be educated” (1993, p. 204). Emotion, a distinguishing characteristic of SR ideology certainly shows here. I think I understand what Macedo is saying, but I believe he’s perhaps taking “the low road” to break-up apathy and incite emotion. Surely, there is some fruit of the Deweyan progression dream and his Laboratory School out there -- namely, Noddings, Pinar, Giroux, and Macedo himself -- and surely there are teachers that are capable of developing and encouraging critical awareness in their students. I’d like to know you all’s thoughts though; is Macedo challenging new and veteran teachers alike, or is he trying to rally the troops to shift political power?
ReplyDeleteCasey, I was thinking along those same lines, concerning Noddings. Also, I would hope that assimilation would not mean limiting all to a common culture. How boring is that? From what I’ve learned from Dewey, Noddings, and Pinar, we can benefit (and have benefited) from a mix of cultures in leadership, starting with women’s and minority suffrage. Certainly, a government “for the people, by the people” should include the voices of the people.
Okay, I’ll go ahead and ask. The SA voice in my head wants me to ask, “Whereas the U.S. does not have an official language, at what point do we declare English as the official language, to preserve “our” “heritage” (separate quotation marks)? If this question is totally insensitive, please ignore. I just wanted SA to stop bugging me about it.
I think it is important to define who "our" is before we can answer what is to be preserved or not preserved. Macedo makes mention that English is the "oppressor's language" to many African Americans. So, if we define "our" as all of us ( US citizens, documented and undocumented immigrants, First Nations people, [insert others as you see fit]), then there should probably, at the very least, be a respect for language and cultures that are different from the dominant culture. If we define "our" as the white, male founders of the United States, then I suppose having an English-only stance would definitely preserve part of this heritage.
DeleteReginald, there's also an SA side to me as well. It is saying that the practicality of having one standard language would seem to streamline a lot of what we do in society. However, I don't recall anything in the constitution that says democracy is supposed to be efficient or easy. So, if we really believe in democracy, then we should do our best to accommodate multiple languages within our society. What do you think?
Indeed. I think that democracy is a long and arduous road. Dewey’s dream of the wider school, Noddings’ vision for ecological cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism, Pinars insistence on having complicated conversation, and Macedo’s support of bilingual education all seem to go against a self-serving human nature. This brings me back to a question I had while reading Walker & Soltis early on in the semester. If hegemony is more akin to our human nature, are we not slowing progress as a nation by insisting on democracy in 21st century education as an overarching aim?
DeleteReginald and Cacey (re: official language) I don't have any answers, but I wanted to share an experience that Melissa and I had while in Philadelphia. We went to see the Liberty Bell, but unfortunately the museum closed as we were walking to the entrance. Walking around to the back of the museum to view the artifact through the glass we heard many languages all around us. Sure it may be against some of the values that our founders held dear when they met in Independence Hall, just a few meters from where we then stood, to forge in ink this new country, but there was something profoundly American about that experience of being surrounded by the languages and cultural values of a significant number of tourists and locals, foreigners and Americans. Enough so to quiet that little voice in me that once supported English as a national language. Ours is a heritage not just of English, but of a great many languages and cultures. English may be our de facto language, but to quote Cacey "if we really believe in democracy, then we should do our best to accommodate multiple languages within our society."
Delete"However, I don't recall anything in the constitution that says democracy is supposed to be efficient or easy." YES!!!!!
Delete"However, I don't recall anything in the constitution that says democracy is supposed to be efficient or easy." YES!!!!!
DeleteReginald and Cacey-as I read your last two posts I kept thinking how society and its areas of turbulence continually change. Clearly the English language was an act of power as we look back on our history and treatment of "conditioning" the Native Americans to speak the language and culture of "our" ways. Then, I am reminded of my grandparents that came from Italy and Sweden, speaking almost no English, and eager to assimilate into the American culture and wanting to learn English. Our history and proximity to other countries is partly a reflection of our dominant language. Travel within Europe is a reflection of a multitude of languages--just travel in and out of the European airports to get a taste of the variance of languages that interact!
ReplyDeleteReginald, it's hard for me to realistically think that English isn't our "official" language given almost every source of information (aside from some signs) are in English. I pose the question, should the concern be about "the" language we speak, or the languages we give value to, or should the big picture be how we act, and accept everyone despite the language spoken or the cultural differences, as long as we agree that our nation's prime concern is to ensure all its people have freedom and opportunities to grown individually and as citizens committed to the welfare of each other.
In my opinion, the longer we can keep English from being declared the official language of the US, the better. I *do* agree that the English language can be used as power over certain (sometimes un-welcome) groups, and for this reason, if we declared English to be the official language, it might become possible that interpreters are no longer provided or no forms are offered in multiple languages.
DeleteAnd I'm not sure we could agree that "our nation's prime concern is to ensure all its people have freedom and opportunities to grow individually and as citizens committed to the welfare of each other." I can agree that this *should* be our nation's prime concern, but not that it is right now.