Critical Reflection: Negotiating Discourses in Literate Cultures

“To enjoy freedom, if the platitude is pardonable, we have of course to control ourselves. We must not squander our powers, helplessly and ignorantly, squirting half the house in order to water a single rose-bush; we must train them, exactly and powerfully, here on the very spot.”-Virginia Woolf

As teachers we have the opportunity to shape the lives of students. Our particular brand of student is impressionable because of age, background, and cultural difference. The students that I face everyday live in dire situations. Over eighty-percent of the students live within a four block radius of the school building; their playground is a sheet of concrete, quarantined by black fences and bars; their building is stained with a musty tint. It is unsurprising that their platitudes are unpardonable, as Woolf says. Their chaotic, unstable lives often translate into irrational, disorganized behaviors in the classroom. Reading and writing in their classes is not something that enters their thought processes willingly. Controlling themselves requires training. Teachers assume the role of trainer, a role that allows them to train in literacy, and equally critical, civility. This was not a part of the job that I was prepared for, but one that I see value in. Thus, I often find the idea of a literate culture in my classroom, or in any classroom, a pressing issue because our students do not see themselves as readers and writers within a literate culture. Instead the language that they have access to is not always Standard English, or language that will help them meet the standards that data-drive instruction fanatics and the standardized test mafia requires. In order to raise the achievement gap, I find that critical literacy across the curriculum to be one possible solution to the literacy crisis.


One of the primary issues that I face in the classroom is managing the multiple discourses that my students negotiate on a daily basis. Their literacy is dependent upon their ability to access a language that they know and understand. Much to my surprise earlier this year, this discourse is layered with social and cultural differences of which I am ignorant. Their linguistic abilities—what an English class requires—were far below my standard. Yet, I could not conceive of literacy anymore as a one-dimensional box that teachers design rules for and force students to adhere to the rules therein. We are told that language is a system that allows us to communicate. This definition is vague enough that it includes any form of communication with or without understanding, and limited enough to exclude the social and cultural diversity of our students. Thomas and Tchudi outline the nature of language; their discussion includes the linguistic explanation of languages. The impression is that in order to be a language certain features are inherent; languages are all equal, systemic, and used as a means of communication. In order to be a productive language, however, understanding must play a role in the process of communicating. The points made in Thomas and Tchudi’s article are relevant to a linguistic understanding of language, but over the course of the year my understanding of language has evolved into an extreme anti-rule governed system, or non-system that includes social and cultural issues at its core: a breakthrough in critical literacy issues surrounding urban education. All I can think about when I read the robotic words of Thomas and Tchudi is Samuel Beckett’s novel, Murphy, which purports that language fails us. Similarly, one of Beckett’s characters in Watt says, “How hideous is the semi-colon?” Rule-governed language systems are stifling, and this suffocating view of language as a system of signs and symbols fails our students. It lacks meaning for them. The challenge becomes to assist them in accessing a language (formal or standard English) that often seems foreign to them. The language development of our students harkens back to childhood, the early years, when children are exposed to books, words, and images. Kiel notes, “Language acquisition is a process begins before birth and extends beyond school years” (Kiel, 1998). However, many of our students fail to encounter language as in depth as what Kiel calls a “normal child.” This lack of immersion affects their learning. Students of different cultures often rely on storytelling and other forms of oral communication. Therefore, they understand things that are spoken to them or sung to them, but these same students struggle to achieve sufficient writing skills. Thus, their exposure to English is limited if not non-existent.

Research shows that we can raise student literacy levels, allowing students that are currently in middle school access to a literate culture by immersing them in language throughout all content in a school. We have to tailor our ideas beginning on a macro level so that literacy skills are embedded in courses, units, and lessons. Lens and Deshler outline a plan for teaching content to all students. I think we need to couple the ideas of Lenz and Deshler, particularly, we must embed curriculum with differentiated methods that reach the needs and interests of our students while considering their cultural differences as part of that differentiated curriculum. The need to affirm the identities of my students and to consider their cultural differences is critical teaching practice
(Cummins and Bismilla, 2005).

Additionally, the realization of the cultural and linguistic diversity of my students came after months of teaching grammar in isolation. We have access to teaching strategies that grapple with literacy deficits that can be embedded into all content area within a curriculum. Strategies for teaching language-minority students included considering their home language (Fueyo, 1997); however, the necessary realization that language deficits are not always linguistic, but that the social and economic background of a student warrants examination prior to using strategies for teaching these diverse learners (Wheeler and Swords, 2006), and considering the home and professional languages that students use, change the shape of instruction (Baker, 2002). Teaching practices must consider the individualized discourses of students instead of requiring that they conform to standardized English. The research trend moves to end the abuses of English language, as Baron notes, “Knowing English is one thing, requiring it is another” (Baron, 2002, pg. 5).

What does this mean for teachers? We need to make critical literacy—reading, writing, listening, speaking, and thinking—part of a school-wide curriculum effort. Literacy needs to be a school-wide buzz word. It needs to be embedded in curriculums so that we are able to teach for meaning. We need to consider the needs of our students and for me that means tailoring lesson plans to their social and cultural backgrounds, academic and linguistic diversities while paying close attention to the discourses they negotiate with friends in the hallway, parents on their cell phone, and messages on their PSP toys.
Moreover, the ideas contained within the Content Literacy Continuum of Lenz and Deshler are refreshing to me because I think literacy is at the heart of all subjects. Unfortunately, the teachers at my school find this position to be rather ridiculous. Content teachers, social studies and science, particularly, think their job is to walk into the classroom, provide the most rote model of instruction to our students in the Bronx, and then gasp when these students do not pass exams or retain much information. If they cannot read a text for pleasure, then they certainly will struggle when asked to access often jargon-filled textbook language. As teachers we have a responsibility to identify our students' needs, and teach strategically. I find this argument to be the right one, but content teachers at my school focus more on plowing through content, hoping for mastery.

Lenz and Deshler off their project of embedded literacy across the curriculum in their piece, “The content literacy continuum: A school reform framework for improving adolescent literacy for all students.” The benefits of such a program coincide with the position that meeting the needs of diverse learners, which includes their cultural and social diversity as well as their linguistic diversity. For example, a few of the benefits I adhere to are: the curriculum teaches literacy skills across content areas, these skills for pre-reading, reading, etc. are reinforced, strategic planning for students with appropriate interventions, school-wide effort, uses strategies that coincide with best practices, i.e. direct instruction, modeling, and more intensive if needed instruction, selection of critical content, integrates a more school-wide, holistic approach to identifying and meeting student needs, and allows for consistency within the core curriculum. I am certain that the CLC will face the challenge of perceived "more work" for content teachers to reinforce skills, takes a new approach for content teachers if they are teaching skills for literacy and might lose focus and breadth of content that is covered. Yet, I believe that in order to allow students to construct meaning they need to operate in a literate culture that includes pieces of their cultural traditions. What better way to teach students to value each other and create meaning in part out of what they already know.
.
References

Baker, J. (2002). Trilinguilism. In L. Delpit & J. K. Dowdy, eds. Theskin that we speak. NYC: The New Press.

Cummins, J. and Bismilla, V 2005. "Affirming Identity in Multicultural Classrooms" Classrooms, Educational Leadership vol 63; 1

Fueyo, Vivian. (1997). Below the Tip of the Iceberg: Teaching Language-Minority Students. Teaching Exceptional Children, vol 30; 1

Kiel, J. (1998). In C. Weaver, ed. Lessons to share: On teaching grammar in context. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann

Lenz, Keith B. & Barbara Ehren (2005). The content literacy continuum: A school reform framework for improving adolescent literacy for all students. Teaching Exceptional Children. Vol 37; 6

Thomas, L. & Tchudi, S. (1999). The English Language: An Owner’s Manual. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.