To somewhat break this occasionally delightful silence, all I can say is
that I could not agree more with Nate's last note. Thanks, I found it
helpul and most reasonable, we seem to agree for the most part. I don't
believe in end points either, it seems more like an infinite relativism in
positioning etc.
I'm working on an upcoming CHAT symp for AERA on the policy implications of
Hart & Risley's B.O.O.K re. group differences in early language
socialization patterns.
Policy implications of course concern the potential inculcation of middle
class language patterns on children in poverty as perhaps an artificial
means, and questionable strategy in terms of whether it can be successful
"in the end". To do so is hegemonic coercion as one critic notes? The
alternative can't be "don't do anything" but perhaps don't do it unles it
can be done consciously, collaboratively etc..
I'll send you what I've got when I clean it up some more..
(I always get paranoid about the silence, especially when it follows my
posts, and occurred it has)
For the person who wishes to unsubscribe, try getting directions from our
website or write to xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu and type "unsubscribe" on the
subject line, then write your email on the text.
Sunny & warm at last here, pedro
At 07:01 PM 3/16/99 -0600, you wrote:
>Pedro thanks for your response. I think in some ways we have many of the
>same concerns with education. What you see as problematic with
>multicultural education, I see in respect to developmental appropriate
>practices. Where I think we diverge is the notion of more or less
>culturally developed. I think one can talk of school or dominant culture
>and the home/community environment without putting them into some form of
>hierarchy. I also do not see the opposition between the two as an
>imaginary which I sensed you were argueing, but something very real in how
>education tends to be organized. I think we often set up resistance
>between school and home cultures when it necessarily does not need to
>exist. Often the home culture is blamed for this resistance, but I see the
>school culture as being the responsible one. There are those when the
>choice is put in oppositional terms chose the school culture, but many more
>I believe chose the route of resistance. I have concerns that in setting
>development up in a hierarchical manner as in "the lower ranks of a caste
>system" are setting up at atmosphere of resistance toward both the school
>and home cultures.
>
>I see development in a dialectical manner in which there is bilateral
>change between school and home cultures, and have a difficult time in
>framing cultural development with the school culture being on the top.
>While Delpit discussed the importance of the learning of skills, she also
>advocated Ebonics and a culturally relevent pedogogy in general. What I
>found particularily powerful in her book "Other Peoples Children" was her
>research in Papua New Guinea in which she helped design an education system
>which valued an embraced universal and local knowledge. This allowed an
>atmosphere in school where students did not have to make a false decision
>between home and school culture.
>
>For me, the us/them is something that does exist in schools, but it doesn't
>have to be so. We do not have to look at other cultures or classes in a
>linear fashion. I don't think this means we have to give up praxis, but
>just the universal end point in which it has been historically framed. I
>think Vygotsky, Delpit and even Freire do not discount the importance of
>skills or being knowledgeable in the dominant discourse, but question the
>notion of end point in development. Again, thankyou for your response.
>
>Nate
>
>>What is wrong with being able to participate more fully in the society
>>dominated so?
>>It does not require giving up the natal culture necessarily. Alternators,
>>border crossers are fine, just part of becoming more culturally developed
>>on both ends of the spectrum.
>>I don't see the dichotomy of dominant v.s. oppressed as the only option
>but
>>rather see gray zones here and there where more of those children from
>>locked out groups can become increasingly part of the power structure. I
>>just met a Dean from a low SES Appalachian background whose humility and
>>memory are powerful. He has not forgotten his roots and is in a more
>>dominant position now, relatively speaking. I know others from other such
>>groups, more are needed. I vaguely remember a reference (Vernon 19??)
>which
>>claimed may of the top executives out there came from humble origins. It
>is
>>not as dichotomous here as in Brazil and such contexts in relative terms,
>>though yes, the 3rd world is alive and well in the U.S. and other
>>multicult. dev. contexts. But,
>>What is the alternative anyway? To leave those generations locked by 3-4
>>literacy differentials and their future kids?
>>What if we place a moratorium on all leveling efforts? What would be the
>>ethical considerations then?
>>I think even those fixers you describe, who seem to be everywhere I agree,
>>fail to see that even when they think they are fixing them, they are
>>changing both parties in a historical sense.
>>I agree we have progressed very slowly since genocide and efforts to
>>assimilate others by destroying their tools for cultural continuity
>(Native
>>American Boarding schools, English only etc).
>>I agree that ineffective activities such as Head Start, Title I etc, well
>>intended as they might be, have failed in closing the gap. The small gap
>in
>>grade one increased to a 3-4 year gap when the War on Poverty began and
>>this has not changed even after a quarter century of programs that mainly
>>sustain the middle class personnel. (I think that War ended before it
>began
>>or shortly thereafter..)
>>And i agree that the multiculturalism cultural therapy is far from
>>sufficient and may do little more than forcing assimilation into the lower
>>ranks of the caste-like system. This ploy or strategy actually is
>>distracting attention from the fact that schools continue to produce gaps
>>in these groups' children by the very way they are organized.
>>Rather than the laissez-faire or dumbing down the standards with social
>>promotion etc, the challenge is to change the ways education is organized,
>>particularly in terms of the dev. of mediational skills and the absurd
>>chronological age segregation (and timetable). I think there are still
>many
>> other ways to organize it differently at the level of the Brown 1954
>>decision. But at the root of the problem is the larger problem of cultural
>>(under)development, of the us/them delusion-trap (which afflicts most).
>>
>>So, the more even cultural line refers to implementing the necessary
>>socio-cognitive supports and means that serve against constraining
>>perfectly competent children early and later on in school.
>>Like Delpit, I think it may be more ethically problematic to desist from
>>insisting on the development of key tools for fear that value/belief
>>systems might be altered in the next generation. Those change and get
>>reconstructed anyway. Bicultural development, like bilingualism has its
>>cultural(tool-agency) advantages.
>>Change is the nature of the beast.
>>
>>pedro
>>Pedro R. Portes,
>>Professor of Educational %
>>Counseling Psychology
>>310 School of Education
>>University of Louisville
>>Fax 502-852-0629
>>Office 502-852-0630
>>Web at louisville/~prport01 (under construction)
>>
>
>
Pedro R. Portes,
Professor of Educational %
Counseling Psychology
310 School of Education
University of Louisville
Fax 502-852-0629
Office 502-852-0630
Web at louisville/~prport01 (under construction)