Week 5: Paper 1 Prep

I chose to explore how linguistic diversity is dealt with in the classroom because I will begin my student teaching next semester and feel that this is an important topic to research. As a white female, I am entering into a school system whose population is made up of students whose backgrounds are much different from mine. With that in mind, I must be willing and able to adapt my teaching methods to fit the students I am teaching. To prepare myself for the diversity within schools, I am curious how other teachers have handled linguistic diversity in their classrooms. I don’t want to be a teacher that tries to eliminate the diversity within a body of students because diversity makes our society interesting.

Acquiring the ability to function in a dominant discourse need not mean that one must reject one’s home identity and values, for discourses are not static, but are shaped, however reluctantly, by those who participate within them and by the form of their participation. Many who have played significant roles in fighting for liberation of people of color have done so through the language of dominant discourses, from Fredrick Douglas to Ida B. Wells, to Mary McCloud Bethune, to Martin Luther King, to Malcolm X.

Delpit 552

This passage is important to my question about linguistic diversity within the classroom because it addresses the fact that students should maintain their cultural identity while acquiring a new discourse. The fact that Delpit highlights the successes of individuals who acquired a secondary discourse in schools shows the importance of students learning to SAE, the language of power, while still maintaining their own cultural identity. By giving students the knowledge of the language of power, teachers enable their students to become advocates for themselves, which is an important, lifelong skill.

The important concept/keywords are that “discourses are not static.” This is important because languages that are in contact with each other begin to change the other. As students sit in the classroom, they are being exposed to SAE and this incidental language contact can affect the students’ primary discourse, so whether or not the students want to participate in the secondary discourse, SAE, they are familiarized with it in the classroom. Some students will be resistant to learning a secondary discourse, but it is a necessary evil because students need to know how to speak SAE to succeed in the business world. Because of this, I feel that this is an important passage to consider when writing my paper because it highlights the need to show students the importance of learning the language of power, but also stresses that it needs to be done in a non-confrontational manner so that students will be willing to try to learn it. The question also extends to how is this achieved?

Week 4: Who are/have been my literacy sponsors?

Brandt describes literacy sponsors as the people or group who choose what is taught, how much is taught, and who is taught.  This is extremely important to consider because each group that decides to make another group of people literate do so with their own agenda in mind.  For example, missionaries go out in other countries and teach the people of that country about their mission; thus, the information presented is skewed to fit the "needs" of the sponsoring group.

On the very obvious level, my parents and family have been my literacy sponsors for my entire life.  They have helped shape me into the person that they want me to be.  My family instilled a certain set of values in me, which are consistent with their own.  Part of my family's values is a good Christian upbringing, so I was brought to church and Sunday school every weekend.  My WELS (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod) church has another agenda that they want to teach their flock of people that congregate there every weekend to hear the word of God.  Although I know that their teaching are different from Catholic or Presbyterian, I don't know the exact roots of the teachings of the church. This is an interesting facet of my religion that I have never even considered because I have never known anything different.

I had the pleasure of attending public schools in Kenosha, WI throughout my entire K-12 education.  Up until the last couple years, I had never questioned the content, quality, or quantity of the education I received through KUSD.  A few semesters ago I studied the Texas Textbook Controversy (TTC) in a class at UWM, which made me realize that the education students receive in schools is the product of school boards.  Because content is based on school board members' thoughts and opinions about what students should learn, education is nothing more than political propaganda.  The textbooks that are printed are, more often than not, based off of the decision of two key states - Texas and California - because they are the largest buyers of texts due to the size of their states.  Textbooks in and of themselves are an expensive investment for states, but it becomes more costly for smaller states to rewrite a textbook to suit their needs/wants, so states usually buy the books that have been approved in either of those two states.  This becomes an issue because of the choices made in creating and approving a textbook.  In the TTC, the school board was essentially "rewriting" history to blot out the imperfections of the United States' history.

Because education has so many components, it is hard to trace who the sponsor of my education was.  Fortunately, I feel like I have more of a say in my education now.  When I first started going to school, I attended UW-Parkside because it was close to my house.  However, two years ago when the education department closed down, I was forced to go to a different school.  After researching several colleges, I was able to choose the college that seemed to be aligned with my ideas and needs.  I do acknowledge, however, that my education is still controlled by many sponsors - the government, DPI, UWM, individual teachers, ect.

Free week

The thing that strikes me as odd about both Gee and Delpit’s articles is that neither is considered with how individuals become literate in reading and writing.  Literacy encompasses more than just an individual’s ability to master Discourses.   In earlier discussions, we talked about how literacy is “pigeon-holed” to highly specific areas, thus, not covering all subjects we can be literate in.  Since these experts are so hung up on individuals being literate in navigating social circles through discourses, how important is it to consider other forms of literacy? 

This is something that has really nagged me because at the very beginning of this semester we were forced to consider all areas of literacy.  The main thing that I have began to consider, in regards to Gee’s Discourse literacy, is how Discourses aide individuals in acquiring other forms of literacy.  Because it is essential to converse with others to learn something new, I cannot disregard the importance of talking with other people.  Without social interactions, it would be more difficult, but not entirely impossible, to learn new tasks. 

Since Delpit’s article disputes Gee’s statements that discourses cannot be taught in school, I align myself more with her concept of literacy.  Schools create a place to increase various types of literacy.  Although schools have fault, some schools have more than others, each school’s goal is to increase students’ knowledge base and promote literacy in multiple subjects.  Subjects are taught independently of each other, but there are many areas that cross over into other subjects; thus, I disagree with Gee that secondary discourses cannot be taught because students are successful in school by learning the “language of school.”