Until beginning this particular Foundations of Literacy Learning course (GLIT 6727), I never would have associated literacy with politics and hidden agendas, nor would I have delved into truly associating that, over time, “political, social, and economic forces have brought us to a place where the working class (and to a surprising degree, the middle class) gets domesticating education and functional literacy, and the rich get empowering education and powerful literacy” (Literacy with an Attitude, page x). I think that this has been the most daunting and profound realization for me.
I went to school already reading (from the “See Dick. See Jane. Run Dick, run!” type
books as denoted in the “Mindsets matter: an overview of major literacy worldviews”
article, a series which was key to the Old Basics mode of literacy learning). As bland as it may have been, I excelled at reading (decoding) and spelling (encoding), but had some difficulty with creative writing and independent thinking. Having been a member of the working class, I am now able to see that I was very much able to personally relate to the literacy model of an authoritarian home and a society of intimates (which merely serves to breed a sense of powerlessness). Very much a loner, I spent my time reading (my means of escape) and listening to music. I believe it was my continued reading of a multitude of material, first from my school library, where I thrived on the antics of The Bobbsey Twins, and later from our local Colchester Regional Library, that enabled me to view literacy as my ticket to a better life. Perhaps this is why I felt a strong sense of kinship with Paulo Freire and his wish to help the Brazilian poor work towards literacy as a means “to engage in the struggle for justice” (Literacy with an Attitude, page 2).
When first introduced to Literacy with an Attitude: Educating Working Class Children in Their Own Self Interest by Patrick Finn, there was a quote (on page 8) that clearly stood out for me ... “when I suggest to my hard-bitten students that poor children are not being as educated as they could be, they are not amused”. I was quite shocked to learn that domestic education began about 1800, following the demise of The Corresponding Societies of 1792. I have been even more disturbed to come to the stark realization that it is still continuing to this day, some several hundred years later. Why is it that we have a difficult time facing this fact? Until we come to accept the current state of educational affairs, until one delves into the why’s of the situation, one cannot take a more active stance towards attempting to do something about the social injustices that continue to exist.
I found myself resonating with the Freirean model wholeheartedly embraced by three
individuals living in the United States, namely; Robert Peterson (a Grade 4/5 inner-city teacher in Milwaukee, Wisconsin), William Bigelow and Linda Christensen (both high school teachers in Portland, Oregon). Having accepted the stark reality that “our schools liberate and empower children of the gentry and domesticate the children of the working class, and to a large extent the middle class as well” (Literacy with an Attitude, page 189), I find myself becoming more and more incensed by these truthful remarks; so much so, in fact, that I have upgraded my personal views. I now believe, unequivocally, that the teaching of literacy is necessary so as to empower all. I have never considered myself to be a very political person, but one cannot make a more profound political statement than that.
I have become as “mad as hell” by the inconsistencies and social injustices that continue to plague and prevail, well into the 21st century, and, quite frankly, also feel that I am “not going to take it anymore” as Finn refers to the last chapter title in his book. As Andrew Manning has stated in his “Curriculum as conversation” article, it is time to “reclaim the classroom”. No longer can we afford to teach to the envisaged (envisioned) curriculum as such ties, too heavily, to the Transmission, lecture style, model as discussed in Jim Cummins’s article entitled “Sanitized Curriculum” in which we merely continue to turn out passive students who know naught how to analyze, think for themselves and problem solve with respect to current planetary issues. Instead, this traditional method serves only
to further disable and disempower both students and teachers. The teacher is seen as the deliverer of a service; the student merely the receiver. Can we possibly get any more passive than that?
Our primary discourse is that which we learn, informally, at home. In this light, oral communication is of significant value and importance. As educators, we acknowledge the significance behind the first five years of a child’s life, and yet there are dramatic differences that take place in the lives of our children before they go to school which then serve to further impact upon one’s educational experience(s).
As long as the discourse of the student is in conflict with the discourse of the school, these are the students that shall continue to fail. It is only in introducing them to powerful discourse that we can even attempt to give them a better chance at both access and success. As F. Christie states in “Language, access and success” ... social injustices (such as language dialect(s), understanding of language, use of language, social class, cognitive ability and gender) negatively impact all.
We must brave the uncertainty that we feel in order to venture towards the teaching of the real curriculum (via the Interactive/Experiential model that is culture fair and empowers all students); a method that allows the learner to become an explorer of meaning by way of critical thinking, creative thinking, ability to interpret and analyze the facts, otherwise we will continue to commit countless additional atrocities in the name of literacy.
The comparisons between Roadvillers and Maintowners in chapter 9 of Literacy with an
Attitude really seemed to send the message home for me. Roadvillers were akin to
members of the working class whilst Maintowners were akin to that of the middle class. The discrepancies are shocking, to say the least.
ROADVILLERS (WORKING CLASS
Scaffolding involves the parents staying on a topic long after the child has gone on to something else. Parents are conscious of the importance associated with “pay attention ... listen ... behave”; hence, this is deemed as the primary purpose.
MAINTOWNERS (MIDDLE CLASS)
Scaffolding involves asking questions, rephrasing or stating what has been said, adding new information to extend/support current topic of conversation (exaggerate and repeat new words). Purpose is to keep the conversation going.
Dramatic differences in pre-school entry educational experiences begin here.
ROADVILLERS (WORKING CLASS)
• exposure to books (the alphabet, simple shapes, basic colors, name pictures and parts of pictures)
• parents ask questions (expect answers they taught)
• no special bedtime routines
• stories have morals or lessons
• rarely provide emotional or personal commentary in recounting real events or book stories
• do not understand hypothetical questions
• primary discourse is in conflict with school discourse
• do not see the relevance of school work to their own lives
• society of intimates (powerlessness)
• conformity is expected
• parents are authoritarian
• implicit language (context dependent)
MAINTOWNERS (MIDDLE CLASS)
• exposure to books (natural flow of language that parents engage in with their children)
• reading lessons in school very similar to bedtime routines at home
• primary discourse is similar to and congenial with school discourse
• constant contact with strangers (more at ease with strangers) as in associations and friendships
• society of strangers (do not rely on shared knowledge and information)
• sense they are not without power
• parents are democratic (collaboration encouraged re decision making)
• willing to discuss reasons for rules and decisions if challenged (continuous need for explicit language)
If I may reiterate, once again, as long as the discourse of the student is in conflict with the discourse of the school, these are the students that shall continue to fail. It is only in introducing them to powerful discourse that we can even attempt to give them a better chance at both access and success.
How can one sum up what needs to be done to correct the discourse problem that clearly exists? It appears that the working class, predominantly, needs the following:
• to be introduced into a school community whereby explicit language makes sense
• to be introduced into a school community whereby explicit language is necessary
• to be part of a community where authority is viewed as being a collaboration effort
• to see the relevance between the school community and their personal lives
Robert Peterson managed to create “a positive atmosphere in the classroom through
activities that stressed self-affirmation, mutual respect, communication, group decision making, and cooperation because he knew that these values and skills are associated with the gentry” (Literacy with an Attitude, page 175). One must “master school discourse and powerful literacy in order to struggle for justice and equity” (Literacy with an Attitude, page 206). It remains our job, therefore, as advocates of social responsibility, to “involve students in probing the social factors that make and limit who they are and ... help them reflect on what they could be” (Literacy with an Attitude, page 180).
Are there any Canadian teachers that have also embraced the Freirean model? If we are to make the changes that are necessary, these are the people that we, as educators, need to meet and dialogue with. Nothing short of ... “dialogue, conscientization, and explicitly teaching school discourse and powerful literacy will give all students a chance at an empowering, liberating education” (Literacy with an Attitude, page 190). Is this not where we should be as a planet? The experiences of all people deserve to be validated.
If I may quote from James Paul Gee in “New People in New Worlds: Networks, the new
capitalism and schools”... “The only real solution, of course, is to change the game, that is, to change our society. The only real solution is to imagine and begin to implement a society in which success in school and having access to specialized forms of knowledge are not markers of class and race and, in some cases, gender ... Ultimately, our failure of minority and poor children in school is rooted in our unwillingness or inability to give them the forms of instruction that are theirs by right and that are necessitated by the doors that have and continue to be closed to them.”
Further to this, I wish to end with powerful John Lennon Imagine lyrics ...
Imagine there’s no countries,
It isn’t hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too.
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace ...
You may say that I’m a dreamer,
But I’m not the only one,
I hope someday you’ll join us,
And the world will be as one.
I have never believed myself to be a political person, but I find that the literacy stance that I have taken the time to share here is, indeed, most political in nature. Perhaps all current individuals enrolled in this Literacy Education course should take the time to forward a copy of their Literacy Position papers to our current provincial members of Parliament. Would this not be an interesting way of bombarding them with literacy tidbits to debate in the House of Assembly? I, for one, would be most interested in seeing the literacy stance that they would take for all children, the future leaders of this planet.
