Darcy Markham Analysis #4

“I no longer regard my students as “learning disabled” but as students who learn differently. Just this act of changing my language allows me to think differently about the learning process”(Markham, Analysis 3, 2003).

As a teacher of students who have been labeled “learning disabled” I was unaware of how much the language of the label affected how I regarded my students and the manner in which I taught them. Through the readings in this class and my own personal experience, I have begun to “recognize some of my own cultural biases and the linguistic patterns that limit my ability to reach and teach my students” (Markham, Analysis 3, 2003). I now look with greater care on the labels that I use and the root metaphors that are part of my linguistic patterns.

This is a key idea that I would not have understood or expected to see prior to this class. I have now begun to realize how much the linguistic patterns of our language and the root metaphors on which they are based affect how we regard the world around us. I found these ideas, expressed eloquently in Bowers book, to be insightful if not rather difficult to comprehend at first. I think what made this difficult to understand was the complex way in which Bowers presented the material and the fact the ideas expressed were so foreign to what I had been accustomed to hearing. Bowers presents a perspective that runs counter to the ideas normally expressed in education and the “American ideal’. Thus I found myself having to reread the book several times.

I believe what Bowers has to say about how deeply our language is engrained in the mythopoetic narratives of the past is important because it forces us to examine the underlying assumptions of our culture that are expressed within our language. Further, if as Vygotsky (1968) states “thought is determined by language, rather than language determined by thought”, then examining our language patterns becomes central to understanding how different cultures perceive the world around them and how we can more effectively teach students who are culturally different. By understanding our own linguistic patterns we can open our minds up to alternative viewpoints that we may not have otherwise understood. It allows us to examine the root metaphors embedded in the language and to realize that they are culturally bound.

A second idea that became evident to me through this course is that much of what we do is based upon underlying presuppositions. I think this idea was made very clear to me as I examined the “No Child Left Behind” speech made by President Bush (2003). Much of the NCLB Act is based on the dominant cultures core values and beliefs and presupposes that certain beliefs are universally “true”. The fact is that this Act demonstrates the ethnocentrism of the dominant White Anglo Saxon Protestant culture that has been predominant in the American educational system since this country was first established. Like much of the educational reform of the past, the latest reform appears to be a reactionary measure to what the dominant culture sees as a threat to its dominant position. Much of what we do in education is based upon the presuppositions that these decisions are based upon. For the most part we do not even recognize these presuppositions and even if we do, we find ourselves accepting them as though they were a universal truth. Often as a teacher I am dismayed with what appears to be a lack of interest on the part of my parents to their students education. However, my perceived view of these parents “lack of interest” is based on many presuppositions. First, it presumes that the parents realize that they are important to their children’s education and have a great influence upon it. For many Hispanic families, education is seen as outside the realm of the family. The family’s job is to take care of the child at home and the school’s job is to educate the child. Parents often feel that they should not interfere with the job of the school. Secondly, it presupposes that the parent’s are aware of what is taking place at school. Even though the school sends a newsletter home with the students, this does not guarantee that the parent’s even sees them. The newsletter is in both English and Spanish, but the presupposition is that the parents are able to read. I can tell you from experience that this is not always the case. Finally, this view that I have presupposes that parents have time to be interested in their child’s education. The fact is that many of my student’s parents are farm workers who work long hours and often do not get home until late at night. They have to take care of the house, the mail, pay the bills, get children fed and into bed, so they too can get to bed to rise at the crack of dawn. When I look at the difficulties that this situation presents it is not hard to understand why parents do not show what I considered sufficient interest in their children’s education.

Along with this are the presuppositions made by educators as to what children should know and how they should know it. The system of education in the United States, like any other country, is based upon the cultural norms of the dominant society. This dominant society sets the standards by which all children are measured. In effect we set up a system by which many culturally different students will fall short. The reasons I believe are the presuppositions that underlie the standards that we have set. First, the standards are arranged in a hierarchical form in which students must reach one standard before moving on to the next. It presupposes that all children progress sequentially through specified stages at specified times. Kaplan states that, “this view of the young is based on the questionable assumption that human beings grow sequentially towards a supposed ideal or inescapable state” (as cited in Pai & Adler, 2001, p. 36). We can further examine this idea based on the language that we use in education. Children are placed in a certain grade based upon their age. They then move up a grade level for each year that they grow older. The word “grade” in and of itself brings about certain thought patterns when we look at our students. A “grade” is a slope that continually gets steeper. Therefore when we think of grades we regard then in the same manner. It is a sequential process that children must follow from the time they enter the education system until they leave. Those students who do not make the “grade” are seen as deficient and somehow different from the norm.

This language and the presuppositions that underlie it place many culturally and learning different students at a disadvantage. For one, these students seem to defy the “norm”. They are an oddity for which teachers find themselves grappling to understand. In order to make this easier, labels are applied to these students such as “learning disabled”, “English Language Learners (ELL)”, migrant, or a myriad of other labels developed by the education system in an effort to categorize those students who do not follow the norm. The labels placed upon these students provide us with a convenient way of dealing with the difficulties we have in teaching them. “They allow [us] to explain the unexplainable, and provide a convenient way of thinking about how learning occurs. However, they also constrained [us] in the way [we] view other forms of intelligence” and learning (Markham, Analysis 3, 2003). The side effect of this labeling process, however, is that the labels once applied change the way that we think about these students. When we label a student as “ELL” for instance we stop regarding that student as a learner and start regarding them as if the label we have applied to them is an inherent characteristic. We think of these students as English language learners and therefore lower our expectations for their learning. Students too begin to internalize the labels that we place upon them and lower their own expectations of themselves. Thus we begin a never-ending cycle of failure, which pervades our current education system.

To move beyond this requires that we look carefully at the language that we use and examine the presuppositions that they are based upon. When we measure students against a culturally laden standard we must be aware of the presuppositions of the standards. The fact is that the standards that we have set in education were “chosen” by a group of people who believed that these “standards” were valuable and worth knowing by everyone. It is important to understand that these “beliefs” are not universal but based upon the cultural understandings of the group or groups who developed the standards. This group could have chosen umpteen different standards, yet they agreed to only the few that were chosen. So what of the perhaps dozens of others, that they did not chose? Were these not worth knowing? Or were they simply dismissed due to a lack of consensus as to their value? And because they were dismissed, do we now regard them as of “no” value? I would contend that this is not the case and perhaps the greatest things that our students learn within the education system are not set forth in the “standards”. I would further contend that since the standards do not compromise “all that is worth knowing”, it is unfair and unjust to label students who fail to meet the standards as “deficient” or failing.

It is imperative that we look carefully at the language contained within the standards. If language determines thought, then the language we use within these standards affects how we think of learning. Statements such as “all students shall know…” do not provide us with any leeway. If all students should know, then what of the ones that do not know? Do we “drill them and kill them” until they do know? Further, the language in that simple statement conveys that all students “must” know. If we look at a simple English standard that states, “all students shall be able to identify a noun, verb, adjective and adverb”, we are given the impression that it is absolutely essential that students know these things. Yet the fact is that there are a great many people in the world who have proven themselves quite successful without knowing these things. So when a student fails to meet this standard we find ourselves in a conundrum. How do we then judge this student? If we believe the language of the standard, we therefore think that it is an essential part of their learning. If we “must,” teach it, students ”must” learn it and if they don not, there “must” be something wrong with them. Rarely, if ever do we consider that there might be something “wrong” with the standard as set forth.

This idea of language determining thought is extremely complex and requires that we delve deeply into our own linguistic patterns and the thought process that develop from them. By doing so allows us to free ourselves from our own cultural restraints, which act in essence as a set of blinders. Removing these blinders opens us to a wider range of vision, which will inevitably benefit the students that we teach. It is in this recognition that we empower ourselves to become more effective in assisting those students for whom we had previously constrained.

The power of recognition was not something that I had previously regarded as significant. Yet through reading Paley’s book White Teacher (2000), and in some respects Qoyawayma’s No Turning Back (1992), I began to understand how deeply the simple act of recognition can change how we think and teach our students. I believe the most powerful statement in Paley’s White Teacher (2000) comes in her conversation with a black parent who states, “My children know they are black, and we want it recognized” (p.12). At first glance it would be easy to dismiss this statement within the contents of the book, but like Paley I found this to be a “thought changing” statement. I was immediately struck by the fact that this same statement could be made by any number of my own student’s parents. “My children are Mexican, and we want it recognized”, “My children learn differently and we want it recognized.” Yet often the reverse is true. We avoid recognizing what we see as a characteristic or trait that somehow makes someone different from everyone else, in an attempt not to “embarrass” them by pointing it out. When we look at this carefully, we see how ludicrous this stance is. Children who are “different” know they are “different”. They are perfectly aware of the color of their skin, the language that they speak, or the fact that they do not learn the same as others. By not giving recognition to these students we are in fact telling them that there is something wrong with them. I think that Taylor (1994) states it best,

Our identity is partly shaped by recognition or its absence, often by the misrecognition of others, and so a person or group of people can suffer real damage, real distortion, if the people or society around them mirror back to them a confining or demeaning or contemptible picture of themselves. Nonrecognition or misrecognition can inflict harm; can be a form of oppression, imprisoning someone in a false, distorted, and reduced mode of being. (p. 25).

Therefore as teachers we need to understand this power and utilize it in a way that releases our students from the constraints of our own language. We need to give recognition to their differences in a manner that empowers them. We need to move beyond the culturally laden labels that constrain our thought processes and devalue our students as human beings. As teachers we have an enormous power at our disposal that is greater than all the teaching methods that we have ever learned in our training. We have the ability to say to each and every student, “Yes you are different, and isn’t that wonderful”. This small but significant step “gives legitimacy to those students who view themselves as different thereby authenticating their identity” (Markham, Mod 5, WP 1, 2003) and improves their chances for success.

References

Bowers, C. A. (2000). Let them eat data: How computers affect education, cultural diversity, and the prospects of ecological sustainability. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press.

Bush, G. W. (2003). President Bush celebrates first anniversary of no child left behind.

Retrieved September 17, 2003 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030108-4.html

Markham, D. (2003, Fall). What expected recognition does Paley change? Module 5 Working Paper 1. EDF 500. Northern Arizona University. (Available on request from dmarkaz@aol.com).

Markham, D. (2003, Fall). How do my own root metaphors, which grew out of the cultural map of my own childhood, affect the way I approach learning and my students? Analysis 3.. EDF 500. Northern Arizona University. (Available on request from dmarkaz@aol.com).

Pai, Y., & Adler, S. A. (2001). Cultural foundations of education (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Paley, V. G. (2000). White teacher. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Qoyawayma, P. (1964). No turning back. Albuquerque: The University of New Mexico Press

Taylor, C. (1994). The politics of recognition. In A. Gutmann (Ed.), Multiculturalism: Examining the politics of recognition (pp. 25-44). Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1992).

Vygotsky, L. (1968). Thought and language. Cambridge, Massachusetts. MIT Press.

.