- Morrell and Duncan-Andrade argue that students benefit from culturally relevant instruction, yet there has been (and continues to be) ardent resistance insofar as rethinking or recapitulation the “canon” is concerned. Why do you feel that there has been continued resistance to the incorporation of this kind of pedagogy?
- The authors cite Ferdman (1990) who argues that cultural valuation leads to higher levels of literacy acquisition; why do you believe this is the case? More specifically, do you feel that cultural valuation (i.e., valuing a student's culture) in fact leads to higher levels of literacy acquisition?
- Why is it important for students to be taught in their own “native” tongues; and, what kind of transformational experiences do the authors attribute to this kind of instruction?
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Questions for Morrell & Duncan Andrade
Morrell & Duncan-Andrade:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe that there is resistance from the government to culturally relevant pedagogies because of several reasons. First, the current curriculum is based on American exceptionalism. Children learn history written by the winners and the truth is veiled by this bias. A pedagogy that tries to unveil this bias by emphasizing the importance of different cultures threatens the power of the state. Furthermore, one of the functions of the school is that of assimilation (evidenced in the small percentage of bilingual schools and ethnic studies programs). Cultural minorities, when they enter the classroom, have to leave their life experiences and realities in the door. The consequences is that their culture is seen as wrong and regarded as inferior. A culturally relevant instruction would not serve the purpose of assimilation. Finally, for the government, the definition of literacy is to know how to read and write. This notion of literacy benefits mainstream culture and reproduces social hierarchies. Under this system, middle and high class white children have an advantage over other children because what is being taught in school, their secondary discourse, goes hand in hand with what they learn in their home, their primary discourse. Therefore, cultural minorities, which are generally low income, find it very difficult to achieve academically, graduate and get a better job. This perpetuates the current economic and social status.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Astrid's post, I can understand how teaching a more varied and complex curriculum, particularly in history can threaten the positions of those currently of privileged by the system, but I feel that she is ascribing to malice what can be better ascribed to other factors. While the result of the system is as she put it is both dominated by the victors and unfortunately implicating that other cultures are wrong and inferior, I don’t believe that the current system is solely set up to keep those currently in power in positions of power. I repeat, that may be its effect but I feel that it is not the intention or at least the sole intention. When I was going through high school, I was lucky enough to have what I would call the next generation of history teacher. What I mean by that is that he included in the curriculum what would be called the darker side of American history. He taught things like the removal and decimation of the native populations as the US moved west, the unjust instigation of both the Texas revolution and the Mexican-American war, and the failure of the federal government to uphold its obligations during Reconstruction to the newly freed slaves to ensure that they were given the opportunity to successfully integrate as free members of society in the South. The reason why I focus on the history class is that history has unfortunately been a subject that has been white-washed. It has often portrayed a romanticized picture of the US that could do no wrong. Not only has it hurt and demoralized people of minority ethnicities that were overlooked in the general narrative, I also feel that it contributed to the sense of moral superiority that contributed to several failures during the Cold War and beyond. A system of assimilation isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The problem arises when it forces people to forget their own past. The white-washing of history, that is starting to be corrected, forces people both of the dominant culture and the non-dominant cultures to forget their own past. As is often quoted, those who forget the past are destined to repeat it.
ReplyDeleteMichael, my question to you is this: why wouldn't the maintenance of the status quo be the sole reason that a rigidified, canonical, and distinctly Eurocentric curriculum be taught in our schools? Are you suggesting that those in power are ready and willing to abdicate the social and actual capital that has, thus far, ensured their privileged social positonality? On another note, I think you erroneously invoked the notion of malice in your response. There needn’t be any malice for Astrid’s social critique to be a true description of the order of things. People do what is in their own self (best) interest. It’s human nature. So, then, it only makes sense that those in power would do whatever they can to maintain their power, precisely because it is in their own self (best) interest. To argue that the elites are in power because of the effect of the proliferation and a ubiquity of a rigidified curriculum, which they created, but not necessarily because of the intention of said curriculum is a non sequitur (i.e., it doesn’t follow). Why else would this be the effect? What you’re suggesting is that this effect was catalyzed sans a cause; so, then, what would you attribute this effect to, good fortune? Or, is it that power elites simply have better luck than everyone else?
ReplyDeleteWhat I would argue is that there is a difference between intent and result. I agree that the inertial momentum of the educational system has perpetuated a socio-political system that keeps those who are currently in power in positions of power. But I do not believe that that is why the system has been proliferated and expanded to encompass all students. The problem is that a system that was initially designed for a very select few that came from those already in power was expanded to encompass a much more varied and diverse population. This was not done I believe to keep those already in power where they were. I think that it is simply that at that time the definition of what it meant to be educated was extremely limited to being Eurocentric. The cause for the creation of a system that is self-perpetuating from generation to generation is largely due to unintended consequences in my opinion. I am not saying that the creation of the system is sans cause, I am simply saying that the cause was without direct intent. People were trying to solve a problem, how to expand education to everyone, took what was at that time the model of education, a Eurocentric dogmatic canon, and established a system that has unfortunately been very successful at perpetuating the socio-economic success or failure of the generation prior. The road to hell is paved with the best of intentions.
ReplyDeleteIn support of my argument, I provide Horace Mann's six principles
ReplyDelete(1) the public should no longer remain ignorant;
(2) that such education should be paid for, controlled, and sustained by an interested public;
(3) that this education will be best provided in schools that embrace children from a variety of backgrounds;
(4) that this education must be non-sectarian;
(5) that this education must be taught by the spirit, methods, and discipline of a free society; and
(6) that education should be provided by well-trained, professional teachers
In the piece, Morrell and Duncan-Andrade argues alongside Freire, Ferdman, and other literacy theorists for a "boarder definition of school-based literacy that encompasses cultural values, self-awareness, and the development of critical consciousness." Through this new definition, cultural valuation not only leads to higher levels of literacy acquisition, but necessitates it. With current predominant Eurocentric standards in literacy teaching, the ways to assess student ability do not take into account enough the struggles between merging incompatible cultures (or primary and secondary discourses), while also failing to include the various forms of literacy students do in fact already possess within that assessment. I believe that cultural valuation would lead to higher levels of literacy acquisition because understanding where students come from, the sociohistorical context of their learning, allows for teachers to better adapt to differentiated needs and standards. Valuing a student's culture means taking into consideration the disconnect between students' "culturally coded representations of reality with those reflected in the school curriculum." And in doing so, a one-size-fit-all curriculum must be eliminated. Educators should be teaching towards the needs of the students, and because the needs of students are highly varied according to culture, upbringing, location, etc, knowing where the students are coming from is first and foremost needed before any actual teaching can occur. Critical literacy calls for an understanding of one's own world, the ability to reach critical consciousness, and the reclaim of a student's history and future. It requires that students find cultural valuation within and for themselves, which cannot be done if the classroom does not allow for that space as well.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with Astrid. Those who set the curriculum resist change because it helps them maintain power. Historically this has always been the case and is not limited to this country. For example in Scotland as far back as 1600 a cultural majority took it upon themselves to “civilize” a minority by assimilating them. They forced non-English speaking upper class Highlanders to educate their children in English speaking schools in the south as a means of governmental and cultural control. In the Alsace-Lorraine region of France, the language of the schools and what was studied differed based on whether the French or the Germans controlled the area. There was an effort to assimilate the other ethnic group through schooling. In this country, the resistance is due the desire to create conformity across every child. The easiest way to due this is to set a curriculum that reflects the majority’s cultural heritage. As a bi-product of this goal, the current curriculum allows current power structures to remain unchanged. As Astrid pointed out the curriculum is more readily apart of white middle class and upper class discourse allowing them to succeed. This also helps make, whether intended or not, minorities feel less accepted and devalued by schools.
ReplyDeleteMichael: I believe that you are still conflating malice and intentionality, which are not synonymous notions. I am not arguing about whether or not there way this was impelled by malice (though I believe, perhaps at the non-conscious level there was an element of this). What I am arguing is that the intention of our canon, which fetishizes Eurocentric contributions to western society, while simultaneously eliding contributions of non-whites, is geared to ensure and maintain western, Eurocentric hegemony. Otherwise, how do you reasonably explain the reality and persistence of the achievement gap between students of European descent and marginalized students of color? The elision of the language and culture of marginalized students cannot simply be dismissed as a byproduct of a negligent curriculum.
ReplyDeleteThe American curriculum, impelled Educational Humanism, was designed to be a normalizing mechanism according to W.T. Harris. This has not changed. Harris argued that students’ souls needed to be inculcated so that they would be equipped to recognize and appreciate the purported beauty of the West.
Contiguously, he argued that this type of soul-training curriculum would help normalize students by working to curb their naturalistic, deleterious impulses. In sum, he aimed to create an atmosphere that reproduced a very particular type of student. His expressed intent was to indoctrinate students with a Western, Eurocentric version of knowledge students so that they would appreciate the Western Imperialistic enterprise writ large; and, so that they could find their place within it. Of course, at this time he was only concerned with white students. He wanted to do this to create an educational atmosphere that would serve to ensure that the order of things, at his time, would remain so in perpetuity.
That is to say, his expressed goal was to formulate and concretize a concept of democracy, with the white Western enterprise at the center that would stand the test. He felt the way to guarantee the maintenance of the status quo was to “teach” young people about the (purported) intrinsic beauty of the western canon, so that they could develop a natural affinity and appreciation of it.
The teleology of this movement, Educational humanism, which still characterizes our current educational milieu, was to ensure the primacy and sustainability of the West. Harris rejected anything that was not in line with his thinking, anything that could be perceived as a challenge to Western Hegemony. This is exactly what a multicultural, multi-perspectival curriculum represents—a challenge to the status quo, which is why it has been so vehemently opposed, primarily by the right. (For more on this, take a look at the slides on curriculum theory and/or Herbert Kliebard's book on Curriculum Theory).
cont...
ReplyDeleteOn to your Mann example: Horace Mann's articulation was limited to an exclusionary group of students, not all students. So, his outline doesn’t really change much, to be quite honest. Obviously, a Eurocentric educational aesthetic existed during Mann's time; and, it was already considered normal and ideal. This is the socio-historical context of the delineation of his principles, and must be taken into consideration. Thus, he did not need to state, explicitly, that his principles were in support of a more democratic society for those in power— this was already assumed. The diversity that he was speaking of was still constrained to a distinctly Eurocentric demography.
Additionally, Mann’s arguments were repudiated by both his contemporaries and educators that came after him; they were considered anti-intellectual. For Educational Humanist, like the aforementioned Harris, the intellect was the most important component of a human being. They held that it was the intellect that needed to be trained/developed in order to ensure full humanity. Educational humanism, as evidenced by its’ persistence up to today, ultimately won that day, not Mann’s more liberatory principles. So, then, Mann’s principles were not really the guiding principles of our educational system.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen students are prohibited from learning in their own “native” tongue they are kept at a vast disadvantage from other students “whose culture is valued or promoted through literacy instruction.” Some areas have dominant ways of interacting with each other that varies from the typical pedagogical teaching language. Children are brought into the classroom and are blamed for being unable to fully comprehend a form of a language they are immensely unfamiliar with. As a result they are thought of as below average and are punished with receiving low grades in school. The strategy of incorporating rap songs while analyzing poetry reached out to the youth in a way they could relate to. The transformational experiences that the authors attribute to this kind of instruction is the ability to expose students to literary canon and the effect being their ability to grasp what it not only what it says, but also what it means. The result of analyzing poetry and hip-hop music side by side allowed the student to gain a broader understanding of material they may not have previously known how to comprehend. The students were taught about canonical poems in relation to music they already enjoyed enabling them to “generate some excellent interpretations as well as make interesting linkages between [the two].” This technique of instruction gives students the confidence and resources to further themselves academically. It makes available to them a better chance of furthering their education to a higher level.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe authors cite Ferdman to provide bearings for their argument that students acquire higher levels of literacy with cultural valuation. These scholars elucidate through their theories and findings the obvious failure of conventional pedagogy. One of the underlying points of contention is that the current educational construct, to large extents, is in aliment only with the cultural values or practices of certain groups, with particular disregard of others, particularly minorities. The consequence, thus, is the resounding gap of success between groups whose cultures are represented versus those who cultures are unrepresented. Students who culture are represented tend to achieve more literacy success than their counterparts who are unrepresented. With such assessment, the authors then want us to cease from ignoring the results of confining students to learning methods that are mismatched with their cultural values.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, I would agree that cultural valuation leads to higher levels of literacy acquisition. Even though not quite related, the way I can assess the soundness of said authors’ contentions is by evaluating my own learning processes. In classes where teachers were able to relate curriculum lessons to personal or cultural experiences, I was able to retain more as opposed to the ones that I only connected with through reading and understanding. This is to say that when instructions align with students’ culture, they will succeed since this would mean figuring out from student to student, what works best. It would also give teachers the responsibilities to know their students and structure lessons most compatible.
I agree with Morrell and Duncan-Andrade, students benefit from culturally relevant instruction. There has been a limitation place on students by mainly teaching in Eurocentric standards. There continues to be resistance from the government to cultural pedagogies that differ from Eurocentric standards. Teaching in this way does not allow room for connections between primary discourse and second discourse. Finding a connection gives a student access to expand their literacy of a topic. I believe that there has been continued resistance to the incorporation of cultural valuation pedagogy, because it allows central control. America is controlled by Eurocentric values, once other cultures are acknowledge they gain power and are more likely to compete with Eurocentric views. When that happens inquisition of the Eurocentric ideology will occur and it will start to lose power. By controlling the pedagogy expressed in schools value of certain cultures can be uplifted while another one is devalued. This is very similar to Freire reading and how he expressed that it is in the best interest of the oppressor to change the consciousness of the oppressed, not the situation that oppresses them. Changing the mindset of the oppressed to have no inquiry about the situation that continues to restrain them, causes them to believe their situation is normal, making them possess no urge to change anything. It is way more powerful for the oppressor to influence the consciousness of an individual than anything else, it allows them to have full control. Although students benefit from culturally relevant instruction it is not implemented in curriculum because the dominant group wants to maintain authority.
ReplyDeleteThis article also made me think of a quote by Malcolm X,“as long as you can be convinced you never did anything you never can do anything." Another reason why resistance continues.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that there is much resistance to rethinking the "canon," because this society is taught to think of what is deemed classical education as fact, rather than something that has been socially and historically shaped as such. When thinking of "the classics" in literature, there are novels this society consider inarguable classics written predominately by--off the top of my head: Shakespeare, Dickens, Austen, Melville, Twain, Wilde, Conrad--Western writers. I spent a couple years as a literature major, and I cannot think of a single inarguable "classic" novel written by a non-Western writer. (Maybe Dostoyevsky and Nabokov wouldn't be considered Western writers.) Even what is categorized as "classical music" is so Western-centric.
ReplyDeleteI would not say that any of these writers were not great, but I definitely think ideas of "classic" education were established for a different group of people--the Western people who started what is now the U.S. education system. The U.S.'s population looks a lot different now, and what was applicable to students a century ago cannot be expected to be applicable today. In hoping that education will spark self-directed learning outside the classroom, there needs to be a connection to and applicability of classroom learning to a student's outside life. Cultural valuation also inherently fights the banking model of learning; utilizing tools that are familiar to students allows the teacher to participate in the learning process as students' are encouraged to make connections through personal perspectives and identity.
I think it is brilliant to look at poetry through a "familiar lens" of rap songs. The connections there are definitely natural (learning about beats, metaphors, rhyme schemes, other literary nuances). This idea also fights the pervasive notion that students in low-income, high minority areas do not have the inherent ability to learn this sort of material and have created the education gap from their own merit. This article reminded me of a really great episode of This American Life (#218: Act V) where a woman brings the last act of Hamlet to a group of inmates at a high security prison. Their own experiences of paralysis or push and pulls in making a decision to commit an egregious crime (in Hamlet's case, killing his uncle to avenge his father's murder) was an avenue into connecting with the play, revisiting/analyzing a hard personal experience of theirs in a different context, and creating a collaborative creative space. There is a humanizing aspect in this type of learning--in utilizing material with which students can really connect to and apply.
Morrell and Duncan Andrade cite Ferdman (1990) who argues that a high value placed on a students’ culture will lead to higher levels of literacy and acquisition. I whole-heartedly agree with this argument. It is true for all students that when they are interested in the subject matter they will be more inclined to do the work in the first place as well as put a good amount of effort into it. A teacher is more likely to keep her students engaged in class if she is talking about things that they like, or already know something about. A student can build necessary confidence by being able to raise her hand and answer a question using knowledge she acquired from outside of school. It makes sense, for both of these reasons, to design a school curriculum through a lens that the students are familiar with and enjoy. Today schools teach through a thick Eurocentric lens that a large amount of students don’t look through on a daily basis, and thus these students struggle to grasp lessons trying to be taught, and fall behind. Furthermore, these students aren’t getting the kind of support from home that is necessary because of this lack of consideration of many cultures. A student working at home on an assignment can’t go to her parents for help if they have limited knowledge on the subject as well. The important home support that every students needs fails, and the student has been left behind.
ReplyDeleteThis reading goes on to prove that this argument is true. A high school English class practicing poetry analysis and debate performed exceptionally because they were comparing canonical poetry to how they see poetry through hip-hop. The students effectively demonstrated their ability to critically analyze both modern day poetry and canonical poetry as well as create arguments to compare and contrast the two, and were able to defend those arguments; showing their literate competency. All it took was some interesting material and a creative project to help them to respect canonical poetry, even though it isn’t necessarily valued in their background. Pedagogical cultural valuation clearly can be done, now it’s just making that fact more widespread so that we can begin to close the literacy gap between different ethnicities.
-Anna Kite
I would like answer the third question. When students are taught in their own “native” tongues, they are more likely to be interested in. They can sense the literacy and culture through these native tongues. The author used hip-hop music to attract students’ interest, which turned out to be a successful way. They not only learned what it was through text book, but also they learned the history, style and characteristics about it. If they are not taught in their own native tongues, “the lack of consideration given to the cultures and cultural values of children who are members of ethnic minority groups leads to unequal educational achievement based on ethnicity.” The problem of racial misunderstanding and racial cultural difference would emerge. Taught in their own native tongues, students would have a better understanding and comprehension over the knowledge, literacy and culture. So it is important for them. The authors had the transformational experiences are let students come into contact with literacy canon and then mater what they really mean. Through this kind of method, students will learn the essence of literacy canon and develop their own understanding, which helps them better grasp what they’ve learned. The analysis of poetry and hip-hop music result in students’ wider comprehension in the material and finally help them regain their confidence and academic literacy.
ReplyDelete