Although
I continue to be unsure of my feelings toward the Common Core State
Standards(as I will probably remain, until I am teaching and can experience
their first-hand use), the foundational beliefs extolled in Teaching To Exceed the English Language Arts
Common Core State Standards unfailingly voiced my concerns and goals toward
teaching in the first three chapters. In
this text the CCSS are arrived at after “developing meaningful issues and
events in which students engage in literacy practices”(Beach, Thein & Webb
43). In this respect they are secondary
to the driving factors of literacy practices, sociocultural considerations, and
creating critical engagement.
The
philosophy contained in Beach, Thein, and Webb’s argument posits that rather
than accepting what is told or passed onto them from institutions of power,
students should be taught and encouraged to critique established
conventions. Such questioning serves for
the betterment of both the students and the institutions. This is premised by the conviction that the best
citizens and students are those that actively question the actions of establishments. I believe the authors are demonstrating the
opinion that a democracy would be better served by citizens that are fully
aware of the repercussions to their choices, rather than manipulated by hegemonic
practices. Texts are a location where
some of this work can be cultivated. All
texts the students’ encounter come from a political and social position. Rather than trying to deny this, teachers can
help students to recognize how and why the discourse is used. While this highlights the connection between
power and the ability to manipulate language as a focus for study, it is just
as relevant to provide this ability to students so they acquire greater agency to
make decisions.
The design of instruction
with this philosophy should be bottom-up, based on students’ needs rather than externally
imposed. All learners have different
identities shaped by their particular backgrounds and cultural history, which
should be accounted and provided for in instruction rather than trying a “one
size fits all” curriculum. Although such
idiosyncratic teaching seems difficult, every effort must be made to stem class
activities from the environment and concern of its students. This will allow the information to be relevant
to the students’ lives and future. The authors
make this distinction with what they see as the difference between
standardization and standards. Much of standardization
is based on the sociocultural background of those who write the tests and
curriculum and this is, obviously, not a ubiquitous background of the entire country. The low tests scores of many students do not
in any way reflect their inability to grasp points of reading and writing
instruction, but rather is indicative of the bias of the tests. The means of assessment(just as the methods
of instruction) must take into account the sociocultural perspective of all its
students, rather then only those who had access to the right “cultural capital”(13).
I completely agree with you Kelsey, as future educators these are things we need to consider. As you’ve stated, the chapter discusses the distinct differences between standardization and standards. From a linguistics standpoint I think it is interesting to examine what exactly constitutes as “Standard English.”
ReplyDeleteIn our classrooms we are going to encounter students from non-standardized English-speaking backgrounds who are not familiar with the conventions of “Standard English.” I think it is important for teachers to acknowledge the difference between “Standard” and “Standardized English.” The former implies that there is one appropriate single standard form of English. This ignorant view of the English language fails to recognize the fact that language is a social behavior that constantly changes. “Standardized English” acknowledges the fact that language is dependent on social norms, registers and situational contexts.
The dominant version of the English language is the language of the people and institutions in power; therefore, it is the language that is most valued in schools. The version that has been deemed “Standard English” is not inherently better, but rather it is politically, socially and economically privileged. Just as you mentioned, standardized tests are biased and value specific types of knowledge, much like the educational system. Teachers need to address this reality in the classroom with their students. This issue is crucial because language and culture are central to one’s identity. Some students who are struggling to grasp the norms and conventions of “Standard English” may feel pressured to disassociate with their cultural history, thus compromising their identity in order to succeed. Instead of promoting mainstream cultural assimilation, teachers need to acknowledge that the language spoken in schools is privileged and help their students to understand what that means.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKelsey,
ReplyDeleteA very thoughtful post! I think you could actually use some of this framing in your work in your thesis (are you still doing something with reader-response theory)? The concerns for asking students to engage meaning that is both outside and within the classroom, especially in terms of literacy, certainly seems to be at the heart of the argument in this text. I also appreciate that you highlight this idea that school is not a place that is separate from the world, where we learn about the world, but rather is implicated by and is a part of it. In that way, it's a system we can critique (even the use of the standards!) as well.
How do you imagine that English teachers can best design curriculum from the bottom-up? I wrestle with this idea often, especially when thinking about the wealth of materials that are out there, and how difficult it is to sort of rifle through and evaluate it all. I often find myself cherry-picking what I like, or what resonates with me, rather than actually wondering about how ideas and methods are or aren't in conversation with one another. This book has reminded me, over and over, that I need to be a more careful evaluator, and to take into account that any concern for "relevancy" is still something insisted upon by the teacher, and that the teacher has to make it relevant, but also extend it. Or, I guess, ask the students to. It's so tricky! But your post reminds me about how exciting it is, and what it means for democratic possibility in the classroom. Thanks for such a careful and complex response to the text.
By the way--your fears seem right on to me. Demonstrates a thoughtful, self-reflective mind at work!
smr