Re: Applied Delpit?

Peter Farruggio (pfarr who-is-at uclink4.berkeley.edu)
Sat, 11 Apr 1998 18:17:45 -0700

Of course the hidden curriculum can be taught in more than one way. I try
to teach my kids "about" the hidden curriculum, with the hope that they can
manipulate it for their own advantage without having to abandon the
superiority of their ethnic, working class values...such values as
solidarity, respecting human relationships and family responsibilities,
even the value of examining ideas within their situational or historical
context, rather than in the abstract tradition of middle class (or rather
bourgeois, let's not forget who's in charge!) school discourse. Sometimes
this can be done by burlesquing some of the uptightness or individualism of
the US middle class while getting the point across about acquiring the
skills. This is considered subversive teaching, and it's not easy to pull
off...but I hope that the consensus in this discussion is not to get kids
to accept the hidden curriculum in a subtractive way. Delpit's famous 1989
article in Harvard Ed Rvw seems to waffle on this point (do you educate or
indoctrinate?), especially with her nastiness toward whole language
teachers; but then her subsequent writings on multicultural ed. seem to
veer toward respecting minority children's home cultures.

Pete Farruggio

*************************************************************

>
>>the Ypsilanti program (Weikert)in Michigan was the last of the
>interventions of that 60's genre that applied the approach even before
>Delpitt, under a cultural deficit mode perhaps. It helped but did not even
>out the distributions.
>>
>>I have also heard that Muslim African American schools apply it too with
>good results but have not yet seen any data..
>
>With regard to the hidden curriculum in Jay's last note, I could not help
>but remember about the hidden curric. in graduate school when dealing with
>anti-poverty early age interventions. We were taught, in what seemed then a
>most liberal and benevolent discourse, that teaching middle class
>interaction patterns and values early on to families (so disadvantaged),
>was what was needed to help "them" or more specifically, their children,
>thrive in school. Fixing the culture would establish compatibility with
>schools as they have been organized, and even out the cultural
>distributions in school achievement.
>
>The Coleman report lent support since inequality was not really associated
>with school variables. The curriculum went from fixing them to fixing the
>schools and teachers later to the present multiculturalism route. None of
>these worked except for those afore mentioned. Yet the hidden curriculum,
>particularly in psychology, remains, churning out well intentioned experts
>just like teacher education programs turn out more culturally sensitive
>teachers...etc
>
>Unfortunately, the misconception or illusion stemming from these not so
>well hidden curricula is that we have actually diagnosed the problem
>correctly, and that we know how to reduce inequality. Geez, the cures
>proposed by "our" social science appear to ascerbate the prob.
>
>If we "know", and our practices (or applications)follow from this knowledge
>and "they" are still caught in the cycle, and there are more children
>destined to poverty than ever, where does this leave "them"?
>(if we keep ruling out it is this or that). Hidden indeed. pedro
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 04:17 PM 4/4/98 -0800, you wrote:
>>>
>>>Dear Xmca-ers,
>>>
>>> Are there any examples of curricula which adopt Lisa Delpit's
>>>view that kids should be taught the hidden curriculum of the school
>>>(or which adopt other forms of explicit instruction about dominant
>>>forms of instructional culture?). I assume that Goldenberg and Gallimore's
>>>work on instructional discourse falls into the latter category, but
>>>cannot find a handy article/ref and my assumption could be wrong. It
>>>sure wouldnt be the first time!
>>>mike
>>>
>>>