I'm not sure why but I was really bothered by this "culturally responsive teachers" article. It seemed to have a lot of unproven assertions and some odd conclusions. To wit (and all quotes are paraphrased in an attempt to make them shorter; it might be noted that no such attempt was undertaken by the authors of this article):
1. "Schools purport to offer possibilities for advancement, but maintain structures that limit the possibility of it." Where is the proof or example of that? Does it imply that kids of a certain background shouldn't bother with school because it's actually undermining them? I once heard a black conservative on NPR (wish I could remember his name) say that a negative outcome of the 60's affirmation of civil rights and Black Power was that the rejection of the power structure (The Man, if you will) sadly included the education system. That, he claimed, should have been excluded and embraced as they way OUT OF a subjugating structure. A very provocative claim. This article seems to echo that negative notion that education discriminates just as the larger society does. This, in my opinion, is a dangerous message. It excuses kids rather than giving them incentive.
2. "Schools privilege some students based on race, class, gender, etc." Isn't this backwards? I mean - Okay, I get that you're saying wealthy white males are achieving better, so something must be wrong. (And why used such veiled language?) But this isn't school privileging them, this is them actually accomplishing the tasks of school more efficiently because of the head start life has given them. Personally, I KNOW I was hugely privileged being born a white, male and middle class American. I would have to be an idiot not to know I got lucky on that one. I also, at the age of 15, lost my mother to cancer. Not so lucky there. You deal with what life throws at you.
3. "Affirming teachers treat the necessity for facility with mainstream ways as serving an instrumental purpose for their students rather than reflecting the greater value of those ways." What?? If they serve an"instrumental purpose" do they not then have a great value? There is a "mainstream" way to do things - and there needs to be.
4. Oh, and one last thing - While the Marva Collins story was interesting it has no application for a teacher who is not already a part of the cultural group being addressed. As a white male, how long do I last at my school after I implement my "jive talking" unit and discuss it as a viable means of communication? On the other hand I do (during Huck Finn) do lessons on Black English Variant and the misunderstandings that led people to believe that Oakland, California teachers were actually going to teach something called Ebonics instead of teaching English. Never even remotely true, by the way -but why let the facts get in the way of a good racist joke?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think you misunderstood some of the ideas Villegas and Lucas were trying to explain. In your point 1, I think they mean that the idea of school is that it will be the great equalizer, but it's not. There are a host of reasons for the achievement gap and teachers can be one of them. Some, consciously or unconsiously, have a deficit perspective of their poor, minority students. Also, districts "reward" veteran or excellent teachers with positions in the better schools, thus leaving the new and inexperienced to work in the more needy buildings. Better districts are more appealing; therefore, they attract more teachers. Teachers who do get jobs in inner cities leave their jobs more quickly because they jobs are difficult and they often burn out faster. Another reason for the achievement gap is the unequal facilities. Learning (and working) in a dismal environment doesn't contribute to student success. Villegas and Lucas aren't suggesting that students not come to school. Their philosophy is more Freire-ian. They want students to dialogue about why their schools look the way they do, and discuss possible reasons why the state doesn't vote to change our education funding structure.
Concerning your second point, school culture matches the culture of the dominant white group. Some groups have different rules or ideas about behavior and learning and again - this must be talked about and taught. And while losing a parent is tragic, constantly feeling the very subtle tone, looks, and actions of racial (or other minority) discrimination is real and constantly repeated through their lives.
Regarding point 4 - Villegas and Lucas are not suggesting teachers recommend students learn the African American English vernacular; instead, they are implying that it must be addressed as another dialect or language and teach students who speak this as their first language that it is a legitimate language, but that the reality of the world today demands that they learn "standard English" as a second language to help them achieve academically and socio-economically.
Post a Comment